Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Anthony Towns <email@example.com> 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.)
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
2) GLIBC - original as well, because of major
original contribution, made by GLIBC developers.
3) "modifiication " of (2) literally equivalent to
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?
>2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the
GPL defines "work based on the Program" twice:
First, it clearly refers to "derivative work under copyright
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
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