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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included



On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > 	Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > >  system that is Debian matter?

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
> > GPL for any instance where we're distributing .debs to users of debian
> > systems.

On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:53:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Yeah, but wouldn't that be in violation of DFSG 8:
> 
>  The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
>        program's being part of a Debian system.

Only if you've been consuming large quantities of hallucinogens.

The GPL doesn't even mention Debian.

> Basically, if the license only is satisfied by a part of Debian, said
> part not being transferred with the individual files, it looks as if
> the rights attached to the individual files DO depend on being part of
> a Debian system. Like it or not, this reading is exactly where RMS's
> head is at on this issue. Can we really expect others to follow the
> DFSG when we do so only when convenient? DFSG 8 later goes on to talk
> about distribution IAW the license, so we're covered, but I'm not so
> sure that splitting hairs of our own definitions is such a good idea.

Last I heard, we were having trouble convincing RMS of this idea.

Now he's wrong because this is his idea?

Cute.  [Or should I be saying "Wow... pretty colors"?]

> > Different issue.  The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute
> > a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source
> > separately.
> 
> WITH or WITHIN?  

Actually, the preposition used in section 1 of the GPL is "ON".

[Last time I checked, "ON" has something on the order of 30 definitions.
I'm not sure that Chris Waters "the source is a part of the package"
approach is mentioned anywhere in the dictionary, however.]

> If it's WITH, wouldn't a copy of COPYING in each 
> directory (except non-free :) and a dependency on
> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL cover us?  If it's WITHIN, we have the can
> of worms that's open ATM.  This is the real question.  What will satisfy
> the FSF?  Not what does the FSF want, but what will they walk away from
> this mess thinking that they got all that they could from it and falling
> under my definition of fair: "a fair solution is one that pisses everyone
> off equally".

On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:55:25PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > The doctrine you're citing could have been that the moon was made
> > > of green cheese for all of the citation you'd done in the past.
> > > Furthermore, there is still 17USC507b: The FSF may be denied
> > > relief at all in the case of Debian. It hardly seems right that
> > > where a statutory limit has been reached, you are prevented relief
> > > against others. Basically, Debian is now "grandfathered in"
> > > because of a snafu: EvilCorp is not. Go bother EvilCorp.
> > 
> > That only works if we stopped distributing such things at least
> > three years ago.
> 
> I think that good faith falls in here somewhere. Basically if we
> distributed things in good faith for three years, despite the
> fact that we violated the GPL UNKNOWINGLY, we'd be allowed by law
> to continue, but we couldn't transfer the rights. Think of it as
> squatters rights for IP.

Close.  But, good faith wouldn't apply where the copyright holder has
pointed out a violation, which is then ignored.

Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now.  And, certainly, 
I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith.

-- 
Raul



Reply to: