Re: Content Filtering
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 07:59:26PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:37:23AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > see clause 2 of GPLv2 and clause 5 of GPLv3.
> >
> "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> distribute such modifications ..."
here's clause 2 of GPLv2, with relevant bits highlighted:
---cut here---
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
^^^
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it.
^^
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
collective works based on the Program.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
---cut here---
GPLv3 has significantly different wording (and i don't know it anywhere
near as well as i know v2).
> So, how would me reverse engineering the client protocol to MySQL and
> then distributing my application along with MySQL (assuming I comply
> with other provisions, such as making the MySQL source available, etc)
> require me to GPL my application? I did not modify MySQL in any way?
reverse engineering is not relevant to this point.
combined or collective distribution is what is relevant here.
> I guess it boils down to whether figuring out how to interoperate at a
> client-server protocol level constitutes a derivative work. I think it
> does not and I think that most (if not all) legal jurisdictions see it
> that way.
no, it's about distributing a combined work. the act of distributing a
combined work requires the whole combined work to be licensed under the
terms of the GPL (with an exception for mere aggregation), *REGARDLESS*
of if or how the programs are linked together.
standard copyright laws apply. in most (all?) countries with copyright
laws, that means that you can't re-distribute copyrighted works without
the copyright holder's permission. The GPL grants permission to do that
IF AND ONLY IF you follow the terms of the license. if you are unable
or unwilling to follow ALL of the terms, then you are not permitted to
distribute the GPL-ed work at all.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Reply to: