From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: "Joshua E. Rodd" Subject: [Offtopic for cl.ada] Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/29 Message-ID: <3728C929.984FC681@noah.dhs.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472437978 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g7tlc$j5g$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu> <7g8fid$c7c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net> <_91W2.175$jw4.18662@burlma1-snr2> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@neo.rr.com X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 925419817 24.93.213.213 (Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:03:37 EDT) Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:03:37 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Barry Margolin wrote: [distributing patches against GPL'd software in a non-freed manner] > My take on this is that distributing a work and a program that can > transform that work is equivalent to distributing the derived work that > results from running the program, since the end result is the same -- the > end user has a copy of that derived work. While it may not violate the > letter of the copyright laws, it certainly violates the spirit. Why should > it matter whether the patch is applied before or after distributing? True. I'm not sure how a court would interpret this (mostly because I can't predict the future), although I wish I did know . > The only thing I can think of that's like this that has been tested in > court is some device that was designed to hook into a video game player and > enhance/alter the games. I think the game designer lost their suit against > the vendor of this device, but I don't know whether the issues are directly > applicable (I don't recall if they were suing based on copyright, patent, > or whatever). IIRC the case is still going on, and it looks like the examiner of hardware will not lose the case. Note that under the new 2B legislation (DMCA), going around an anti-`piracy' device would be `illegal'. EULAs would also be enforceable. Hopefully, a judge will declare the law to be the unconstitutional provision it is.