Fwd: Re: Heart of the debate
(Missed debian-legal)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code
> > .. must be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to mean
> > or at least imply "the complete source code must be distributed by
> > applying Sections 1 and 2 to the complete source code"++, (here I use
> > apply in the same sense Section 0 does).
> >
> > In everyday speech these two statements could be used interchangably,
> > but in copyright law they mean vastly different things. I think
> > Andreas has been trying to make this point for awhile now.
>
> Given that that you must affix a proper copyright notice to the
> copyrighted work, and that you're not allowed to alter the text of
> the GPL, what practical method would you have for implementing this
> difference?
Sorry I don't understand what you mean by "what practical method would you
have for implementing this difference".
> > Even if they did mean they same thing I fail to see why the GPL would
> > be drafted in such a convoluted way. The same effect could be achieved
> > by simply defining the Program to be the complete source code in
> > Section 0. (Because if you interpret "under the terms" to mean "apply
> > the terms" once you apply Sections 1 and 2 to the complete source you
> > effectively apply all the terms through 2b).
I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clearly talks
about licensing under the terms of this License, it's very clear derivative
works must be licensed under the GPL.
Now if your interpretation is correct why can't 3a be clear and easy to
understand like 2b is? That is why doesn't 3a say:
Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
which must be licensed as a whole under the terms of Section 1 and 2 of this
license...
In fact this shows that the GPL distinguishes between requiring work that is
distributed to be licensed under the terms of the GPL (2b), and merely requiring
distribution under the terms of the GPL (3a).
Either that or the author of the license has been inconsistent between 2b and
3a. (You have to be careful not to read too much into this kind of thing,
especially when the license wasn't written by a copyright lawyer).
(I'm trying very hard here to suspend my disbelief that 3a doesn't include
Section 0 which defines the Program, this also applies to my rendition of
your argument included in my previous message if your interpretation is correct
3a should really say under the terms of Sections 0, 1 and 2).
> As I understand U.S. copyright law, if you applied the terms through 2b
> then you wouldn't be guaranteeing that those rights were present, you
> would be passing on those rights if present.
(This point of mine is somewhat peripheral so I don't want to dwell on it).
Finding it hard to follow you here. You are considering the actual GPL as you
interpret it rather than my hypothetical improvement (where I simplify the
license by defining the Program to be the complete source code). And (after
going through section 3 and redefining the Program to be the complete source
code) you are saying 2b doesn't require a derivative work of the complete source
code to be licensed under the GPL, it only requires a derivative work to be
licensed under Sections 1 and 2 of the GPL.
Well I disagree I think 2b requires derivative works to be licensed under the
entire GPL not just part of it.
Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the meaning
of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined by a copyright
lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL used inconsistent
language in Section 2b and 3, and it requires believing the definition of the
Program be redefined part way through the license, which is horribly convoluted.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: