Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which restates what
> > > > "work based on the Program": means.
> > >
> > > Attempts to, anyway.
> >
> > I think this "attempts to" quip is meaningless.
>
> How would you like me to say it? "Purports to"? "Professes to"?
> "Makes an honest but flawed effort to"?
That would depend on the meaning you are trying to convey, wouldn't it?
If there's nothing of relevance to say (which is what I believe is the case
here), then the best way to convey that lack of meaning is through not
saying it. Alternatively, if there is a flaw, ou could succinctly describe
the flaw. Or, if succinctness is impossible you could give a url for a
page which describes the flaw.
I've yet to see anything which makes me believe that the GPL
carries this flaw you're suggesting.
> Do you not understand my interpretation that the use of quotes
> around "work based on the Program" means that the writer is
> defining it as shorthand for "either the Program or any derivative
> work under copyright law"?
No, I did not understand that that's what you thought the quotes
meant.
Now that you've explained that, I understand that that's what you
think the quotes mean, but I disagree with you.
The quotes mean that the phrase has a special significance.
You've given a valid definition of that phrase, but that's the
definition of the whole phrase, not the quotes.
> And that an attempt is then made to paraphrase (restate, whatever)
> the latter phrase, and that restatement is just plain wrong?
You've yet to show why the restatement is wrong.
> You don't have to agree with it, of course, but surely you get it now.
Get what? I don't get what you're talking about. The points you're
focussing on seem to be largely irrelevant and (if I focus on them
closely) incorrect.
> > > > Yes. And that "either/or" clause says what "work based on the Program"
> > > > means.
> > >
> > > Yep. That phrase is, in its entirety: "either the Program or any
> > > derivative work under copyright law". And that's the definition of
> > > "work based on the Program" for the duration of the GPL, as far as I'm
> > > concerned.
> >
> > To recap:
> >
> > W: "work based on the program"
> > D: "derivative work"
> > E: either/or phrase
> > C: phrase after the colon.
> >
> > W means E
> > C paraphrases E
> >
> > Thus, you have concluded, C attempts to paraphrase D
>
> No.
I would expect you to follow this "No" with a sentence expressing your
disagreement.
> E defines W, which appears in quotes in the original to indicate
> that it is being given a formal meaning.
It's not clear to me what you are disagreeing with, here.
> C is grammatically a paraphrase of E.
The way I read it, ideas conveyed by C and the ideas conveyed
by E are both meant as definitions of W.
Or do you have some legal precedent for this concept of paraphrase,
where a "that is to say" clause has been nullified in a license
because the meaning is "wrong" in the sense you're using it
here?
I do understand that sometimes terms of a legal document
are nullified. Usually, in those cases, the court attempts to
discern the meaning of the document from the rest of the document.
In this context, that means that if one of these definitions for
"work based on the program" were nullified in court, the other
might still stand.
But you've not provided any reason for me to expect that either
of these definitions will be nullified.
> However, C and E are not the same thing according to
> law; and grammatically and legally, E is the definition of W, and C is
> not. Neither is C \union E, C - D, or some other way to assign W a
> meaning based on the wording of W, the content of an unrelated
> document, or the distance to the moon.
C and E are both definitions of W, and unless you have some valid
legal reason for thinking you can ignore some of the terms of the
license, you must read the license as if both are true.
Alternatively, if you want to think of them in terms of set theory: you've
not provided any valid examples where the union of their meanings is
not significant.
Note that I do recognize that there will be cases where copyright law
doesn't apply at all. Those aren't partiularly interesting, and it's not
the job of a copyright license to delineate those cases.
> > Should we keep going back and forth on this, trying to show why
> > you believe C attempts to paraphrase D?
>
> I don't, except insofar as C - "the Program" attempts to paraphrase E
> - "the Program" (= D). Are we done? And if you're going to move it
> to private e-mail, do it, don't grandstand about it. That is also
> more characteristic of others around here than it previously has been
> of you.
I'm not moving this to private email.
However, I am going to stop spamming debian-devel with my
responses.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: