[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation



> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 
> > > No. GPL.3 does not speak about "programs" at all.
> 
> > Here's proof to the contrary:
> 
> > <quote>
> >   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > under Section 2) in object code or executable form...
> > </quote>

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 07:30:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Okay. So GPL.3 can be applied *either* to a program *or* a work that
> happens to be based on a program.

If you distribute a work based on the program you must distribute it
under the terms of the GPL, which means that it's another "Program"
[unless you fail to put the GPL license notice on the work based
on the program -- which means you can't legally distribute it.]

However, "a" Program is not exactly the same thing as "the" program,
and it makes legal sense to be precise about this issue.

> The "source" it speaks about is the source of whatever one applies it
> to. If I apply GPL.3 to get permission to distribute the object code
> for an entire program, I must provide source for the entire program.
> If I apply GPL.3 to get permission to distribute object code for a
> work based on the program, I only have to provide source for that
> work.

Are you one of those people who pretends that a working copy of the
kghostview program is not being distributed?

> > > Perhaps. But I don't think the author of a program has the legal power
> > > to prevent that.
> 
> > I think you should back up this kind of claim with a reference to the
> > relevant copyright law or legal precedents.
> 
> I don't know how to back a claim that something is *not* in the law with a
> reference to the law itself.
> 
> Does Melville ever mention complex numbers in "Moby Dick"? If you answer
> no, I expect you to back that claim with a reference to the relevant
> chapter of "Moby Dick".

I don't think that you're claiming that Moby Dick is an example of
copyright law or legal precedents.

I think that you are claiming that it's not possible to make a statement
about what is legal or what is not based on the relevant law because
you can't use Moby Dick in a mathematical proof about complex numbers.

If this is not what you're claiming, I don't see what your point is.

> > [It's fairly clear that the GPL says that this kind of practice is
> > forbidden,
> 
> Not to me.

<quote>
  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
</quote>

If I'm a recipient of the source code for a program, a requirement that
I contribute everything owned by any author of the program to Bill gates
before I can distribute modifications is a restriction on my exercise
of the rights granted by the GPL.

-- 
Raul


Reply to: