Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. GPL is a set of
copyright license terms, and the subject of copyright is the right to
publish. The essence of GPL is that, if you publish, you must follow
certain conditions. There is nothing in GPL that requires you to publish.
If someone breaks into your computer and copies GPL software without
permission, then the best that can be said in their defense is that they
have not committed copyright infringement. In such a case, however, it
seems to me that copyright infringement would be the least of their
worries, relative to more traditional criminal charges.
However, an unpublished work derived from a GPL work is not itself open to
be copied freely unless and until it is published. "Publishing," in this
context, is pretty much anything that involves distribution to others,
such as selling the work, but having a copy of your work stolen is not
"publication" for copyright purposes.
GPL does not require disclosure, let alone involuntary copying, and a GPL
work could even be a trade secret. For example, if I made a device that
ran on unmodified Linux, which is GPL, I could decide not to tell anyone
that I was using Linux inside the device and I could require anyone to
sign a non-disclosure agreement before I told them. As long as I did not
charge for the operating system in my device, this would be perfectly in
compliance with GPL. (Of course, if my device ran on modified Linux, the
act of selling the device would be publication, and I would have to make
my modifications available to the Linux community -- but nothing would
require me to disclose, for example, what motivated the modifications.)
-- Mike
On 2000-05-14 at 21:46 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> Something has to give.
>
> So my question is whether you can prevent people from copying your
> copy of GPLed software.
>
> If you can't, then having GPLed software on any system connected to the
> internet is a security issue because preventing people from making
> unauthorized copies is in violation of the GPL.
>
> Silly? Maybe. But I've seen Debian attack the KDE people on lesser
> grounds.
>
>
> Paul Serice
>
>
> P.S., I understand Steve Greenland's position that I have no recourse
> against an unauthorized copy, but I might have recourse against the
> manner in which it is obtained. I would like to hear that I would have
> recourse against unauthorized copies.
Reply to: