Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,:
>
> > My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him
> > that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his
> > unprofessional conduct (hopefully leading to the disbarment or
> > other disciplinary action) is going to reach the critical mass
> > pretty soon. So he might want to slowdown a bit.
>
> Hmm.. another SCO in the making.
SCO is a product of FSF.
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7801/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
(SCO Owns Your Computer)
<quote>
"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according
to Sontag...
</quote>
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
<quote>
I asked Richard to comment on several scenarios involving plug-ins
explain whether or not they were in violation of the GPL. So far he
as only addressed one and has effectively admitted a hole. This is
the one I asked that he's responded to:
[A] non-GPL'd plug-in writer writes a plug-in for a non-GPL'd program.
Another author writes a GPL'd program making the first author's
plug-ins compatible with his program. Are now the plug-in author's
plug-ins now retroactively required to be GPL'd?
His response:
No, because the plug-in was not written to extend this program.
</quote>
Judge: Okay, but what if all these works were written to extend a
"free GPL'd program"?
Stallman: Oh, all power to them; all these works would, of course,
fall under the GPL as "derivative works" (aka "derived works").
Judge: Sontag, do you agree with Mr. Stallman?
Sontag: Of course! GPL has the same derivative rights concept as
UNIX. And those IBM's works were written to extend OUR program
and hence, as "derivative works", they fall under our licensing
restrictions with respect to confidential treatment. I want up to 50$
billion in damages from IBM, your Honor.
</quote>
Now regarding the GPLv3 (draft) and "another SCO in the making" I'll
quote day5done.
<quote>
The GPLv3 states:
"2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the Program. The output from running it is
covered by this License only if the output, given its content,
constitutes a work based on the Program. This License
acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as
provided by copyright law."
Anyone see the words "This License explicitly affirms your
*unlimited permission* to run the Program"?
When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are "running"
(executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The
linked code is object code that is executed in memory.
Moglen states: "We reasserted that code dynamically linked to
GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work
under the GPL and must be released."
Since when does "unlimited permission" mean "--is part of the
source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."?
I thought "unlimited permission" meant "unlimited permission".
Hmmmmm.
Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again...
Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory
is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat
like SCO claiming "all your code is mine".
Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd?
</quote>
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: