Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
>> example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
>> expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
>> originality in the work to start with.
>I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
>branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
>confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely
>irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is,
>well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I
>am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain
>the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages
>and the connection is still opaque to me.)
IMHO.
Work need not be completely independent to be original. It
is enough, iа there a some original contribution in it.
There is a
1) SUN RPC - supposedly, original, copyrighted bu
Sun.
2) GLIBC - original as well, because of major
original contribution, made by GLIBC developers.
3) "modifiication " of (2) literally equivalent to
(1)
One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not
contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new
original work of authorship.
>Assuming that the reported clarification is accurate (i.e., BSD except
>that you can't distribute the original by itself), there are two
>questions to be answered:
>1) Can you take a work based on the Sun RPC code and further modify it
> to be exactly like the Sun RPC code, and distribute that?
No
>2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the
> GPL?
Maybe.
GPL defines "work based on the Program" twice:
First, it clearly refers to "derivative work under copyright
law"
----------------------
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work,
and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law.
----------------------
Second, it refer only to "modify" itself
----------------------
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
----------------------
Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not.
>In order for the code to be GPL compatible the answer to one of those
>questions must be "Yes". MHO, of course, is that the more likely yes
>answer is to be found from (1), as (2) is clearly false. In fact, if
>the answer to (1) is no, I have trouble seeing how it passes the DFSG
>at all.
Reply to: