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

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



On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:

> 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.

Basically, it's not the text of the GPL, it's Debian's practice that
violates DFSG 8 ATM.  The only way we (sorry, Thomas, YOU) are legally
entitled to distribute .deb files is if the user already has a copy of the
GPL on their system.  The only place that Debian has any say in that
matter is on a Debian system.  We're (damn, I never thought I
used the first person plural so much--again, YOU'RE) violating the DFSG by
our (jeez! YOUR) practice, QED.  
 
> 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?

Do I get to quote Whitman here?  "Do I contradict myself, very well then,
I contradict myself [I am many, I contain multitudes]" :)

> 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".

So does "on" the FTP site work, or are we (sorry, Thomas--YOU) stuck with
"on" the package?  Where is the medium we're (again, YOU'RE) using to
distribute?  RMS seems to be saying that the medium is the package, but by
my read, the medium is the point where it leaves Debian's hands: the
ftp/http site.  It really looks as if a copy of COPYING in the directory 
of the ftp site covers it, since the copy is made from there.  Basically,
in a rcp situation, where does the copying take place: on the host, or on
the client?  

> [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.
> 
> 

-- 
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu



Reply to: