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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

@ 11/05/2004 17:43 : wrote Raul Miller :

For example: you can't take code from gcc and code from metafont
combine them to build a new compiler -- at least not under the
current licenses of those programs.

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:00:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
It's not forbidden to make copies, just to redistribute the copies of the derived works.

What's your basis for making this statement?
copyright law in the US (17 USC +) AFAIK does not regulate *using* software or other copyrighted works, it regulates copying *and* redistributing. In Brazilian copyright+computer_programs law, you can make as many copies as necessary to use some software.

You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can even
make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the combination,
and compiles the result to get to your invention; what you can't do
is to redistribute the resulting binary nor the resulting source.

Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
I've overlooked?  If so, please quote this.
section 2:

2. 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, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Let's see, eliminating the irrelevant (to our discussion) parts: [[ 2,/caput/ ]] You may modify; you may copy such modifications with all rights we waived in section 1; provided [[ 2, a ]] you mark the files as changed AND [[ 2, b is irrelevant because we are not distributing ]] AND [[ 2, c ]] you print the announcement if it exists.

I said: You can modify gcc, combining it with metafont (as long as you don't eliminate 2,c announcements -- which AFAIR gcc does not have); what you can't do is ... (because the metafont license does not permit you to relicense a derived work on its source code under the GPL)

Perhaps you're talking about fair use, under copyright law?  Copyright
is extremely significant and, at least in the U.S., fair use doesn't
extend this far.
no fair use. just the terms of the licenses.

Gentoo and other source-based distros do not have the "OpenSSL GPL problem": when you want some GPL'd program linked to OpenSSL, it's not

in their repository, but you can emerge it alright.

That doesn't mean that they are following copyright law.
Yes it does. Copyright IS COPY-RIGHT not, use-right.

Then again, I don't imagine the copyright owners have asked them to
stop, either.
Because they won't, because they can't. IANAL, TINLA, but I am a paralegal and I have some knowledge about the issue.


Reply to: