* air traffic control software @ 1999-04-20 0:00 Terry J. Westley 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Kevin Rigotti ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Terry J. Westley @ 1999-04-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I'm looking for the air surveillance and graphics display portion of air traffic control (ATC) software. Is there any such thing as GPL'd or GOTS ATC code? What about AAS? Is any of that code available for DOD programs? -- Terry J. Westley, Principal Engineer Veridian Engineering, Calspan Operations P.O. Box 400, Buffalo, NY 14225 twestley@buffalo.veridian.com http://www.veridian.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: air traffic control software 1999-04-20 0:00 air traffic control software Terry J. Westley @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Kevin Rigotti 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <DXqW2.244$jw4.22256@burlma1-snr2> [not found] ` <7gdd9e$36l$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Kevin Rigotti @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Terry J. Westley wrote in message <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>... >I'm looking for the air surveillance and graphics display >portion of air traffic control (ATC) software. > >Is there any such thing as GPL'd or GOTS ATC code? Thankyou, it's nice to start the day with a good laugh :-) ATC software is rather expensive to produce, so you are not likely to find too much of it for free, but you might be interested in some of the ATC research sponsored by Eurocontrol Try www.eurocontrol.fr/projects/eons/ Kevin ATC Systems Group, DERA Malvern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: air traffic control software 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Kevin Rigotti @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) Terry J. Westley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fjucn$k4p$1@trog.dera.gov.uk>, "Kevin Rigotti" <rigotti@atc.dera.gov.uk> wrote: > ATC software is rather expensive to produce, so you are > not likely to find too much of it for free, First, this is not what he asked, he asked whether there was GPL'ed code available. This has nothing to do with being free of cost. There is GPL code that costs money, and non-GPL'ed code that you can get without paying anything. These two factors (license used for distribution, and cost charged) are not linked in the manner you assume. Second, whether software is available under the GPL is not necessarily a function of the cost of producing the software. There is expensive software available under the GPL, and there is software that must have cost almost nothing to make sold as proprietary software under very restrictive licenses. For example, I am sure that the Netscape browser was quite an expensive piece of software to build, yet it is released under the NPL, which is quite similar to the GPL. There are many different business models for the distribution of software. The old assumptions that you cannot afford to distribute "expensive" software under the GPL or similar licenses are being questioned by new announcements every day! So you may laugh now, but we will see, perhaps the last laugh will be in the other direction ... -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Terry J. Westley 1999-04-21 0:00 ` bill 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Terry J. Westley @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kevin Rigotti <rigotti@atc.dera.gov.uk> wrote: > ATC software is rather expensive to produce, so you are > not likely to find too much of it for free, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> responded: > First, this is not what he asked, he asked whether there > was GPL'ed code available. This has nothing to do with > being free of cost. There is GPL code that costs money, > and non-GPL'ed code that you can get without paying > anything. These two factors (license used for distribution, > and cost charged) are not linked in the manner you assume. Robert is correct. I also asked about GOTS (Government Off The Shelf). Lot's of GOTS software is available "free" to those who qualify. A lot of it wasn't cheap to produce. We are currently using (and integrating some into our products) Samba, R, emacs, Tcl/Tk, perl, and other GPL'd and open source products. (On a personal note, I've recently decided to release TASH, an Ada binding to Tcl/Tk [http://tash.calspan.com] under the GPL.) I wish a lot of success to ACT, Scriptics, Redhat, and others who are pioneering business models based on open source products. Even though our product is not and never will be public open source, I am trying to convince our management that our customers need and want source code. I believe this will build their confidence in our product and give them a level of ownership that enhances the product. If it doesn't, we need to improve our code, not hide it. -- Terry J. Westley, Principal Engineer Veridian Engineering, Calspan Operations twestley@buffalo.veridian.com http://www.veridian.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- Author of TASH, an Ada binding to Tcl/Tk. Visit the TASH web site at http://tash.calspan.com. ------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) Terry J. Westley @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` bill 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) dennison 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: bill @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fl5ac$9sh$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>, "Terry says... > >I wish a lot of success to ACT, Scriptics, Redhat, and others >who are pioneering business models based on open source products. >Even though our product is not and never will be public open >source, I am trying to convince our management that our customers >need and want source code. I believe this will build their >confidence in our product and give them a level of ownership >that enhances the product. If it doesn't, we need to improve our >code, not hide it. I second that. I also think that someone working on opensource code, will try harder to make their code better, for the simple reason, is that alot of people will be looking at it. (Look at how well formated and consistant GNAT code is, I think the fact that it is in the public eye, is what pushed ACT to do that). I find that if a programmer knows someone will be looking and examining their code, they will more likely work harder to make the code better (programmer pride thing). I knew programmers who spend years coding, and no one looks at what they wrote. these programmer will in most cases, not bother too much in improving their code or even how well written and well documented it is. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` bill @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fl9q5$ab7@drn.newsguy.com>, bill@nospam wrote: > (Look at how well formated and consistant GNAT code is, I > think the fact that it is in the public eye, is what > pushed ACT to do that). Well perhaps partly, but there is plenty of open source code that is NOT well documented. The main key to well documented code is *caring* about documentation! > > I find that if a programmer knows someone will be looking > and examining their code, they will more likely work > harder to mak the code better (programmer pride thing). > I knew programmers who spend years coding, and no one > looks at what they wrote. these programmer will in most > cases, not bother too much in improving their code or > even how well written and well documented it is. Hmmm! Well I think I can fairly say that all the code I ever wrote has been fanatically well documented (e.g. look at the SPITBOL 360 sources from a long time back). Of course most of this code was indeed proprietary, and no one can ever see it which is a pity. I definitely like the fact that other people can read the GNAT code. What has been remarkable at ACT is that we have developed a whole community of engineers all of whom really care about the documentation and the quality of the sources, and I am sure that the fact that this code is read by others and is open played a significant part in being able to create this community. And thanks for the nice comments about the GNAT code, they are appreciated :-) Robert Dewar (and the GNAT team) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` bill 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fl9q5$ab7@drn.newsguy.com>, bill@nospam wrote: > In article <7fl5ac$9sh$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>, "Terry > says... > I also think that someone working on opensource code, > will try harder > to make their code better, for the simple reason, is that > a lot of people will be looking at it. One more point here. To me open source code MUST be well documented, or the point of open source is lost. The GPL can only require sources to be made available, not good quality sources, but the spirit behind the GPL requires that the sources be accessible. One could meet the letter of the GPL by providing obfuscated sources with no comments, but if all your assignment statements look like OOOO000OO0OOOO := O0000O000OO000O0 + O0000O0O00000; with no comments, I think most people would agree that you have not *really* makde the sources available. Similarly if you supply a parser which has giant tables of LRK junk, without supplying the programs that built the tables, you might meet the letter of the GPL requirement but definitely not the spirit. I once worked on a compiler project where the contract had a clause forbidding the use of any table driven techniques. Why? Because on a previous project which required source delivery, the contractor had done just that (delivered LALR parsing tables without the tool that built them!) Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7foo6s$qbm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > One could meet the letter of the GPL by providing > obfuscated sources with no comments, but if all your > assignment statements look like > > OOOO000OO0OOOO := O0000O000OO000O0 + O0000O0O00000; > > with no comments, I think most people would agree that you > have not *really* makde the sources available. Certainly not the sources from which the originator would make changes. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1999Apr23.065716.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > Certainly not the sources from which the originator would > make changes. Well yes, but obviously this cannot easily be defined legally, and the GPL certainly makes no attempt to do so! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Tom Moran @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >Because on a previous project which required source >delivery, the contractor had done just that (delivered >LALR parsing tables without the tool that built them!) Presumably that kind of nonsense could be settled in court, with expert testimony as to what constitutes "source". (The courts being supposed to require some credibility of the "expert witnesses" nowadays.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 1999-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) writes: > Presumably that kind of nonsense could be settled in court, with > expert testimony as to what constitutes "source". (The courts being > supposed to require some credibility of the "expert witnesses" > nowadays.) Perhaps. But we do not know yet whether the GPL will hold up in court anyway. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Florian Weimer @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m34sm64cz2.fsf@deneb.cygnus.stuttgart.netsurf.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@cygnus.stuttgart.netsurf.de> wrote: > tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) writes: > > Perhaps. But we do not know yet whether the GPL will > hold up in court anyway. What do you mean by "hold up" here? Most certainly anyone who copies software in clear violation of the permissions of the GPL, e.g. by not making sources available, is committing a simple copyright violation. The courts have clearly affirmed the intention of congress that software be subject to the full protection of the copyright law! Now if there is judgment involved, e.g. I make the sources available, but you have to wait XXX months for me to fill your order for them, then some value of XXX is unacceptable, and indeed the courts would have to make a judgment on this issue. But the presumption is pretty strong that anyone who copies a copyrighted work must be able to demonstrate that they have a license to do so, i.e. the burden of proof would be on the copier in this case to show that the copying they had done was not a copyright violation. This was for example one of the arguments that Microsoft was using in the Apple case, they argued they had a license for the copying they did. Of course the software has to be legitimately copyrighted and there is a whole section of case law devoted to exactly what that means! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Phil Hunt ` (6 more replies) 0 siblings, 7 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wading rather trepidly into this issue, and with the understanding that I am not any kind of legal expert (in UK or US law), I have wondered if there is a potential problem with the GPL and similar licences, which I'll try to describe. Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A (paying nothing for it). Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) for a substantial amount of money. Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is derived from a GPL work; what can they do? It seems to me that if party C attempts to sue B, B can argue that C is not the injured party, because it is not C's licence who's terms were breached. On the other hand, it seems to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), B can argue that A (or any other party, for that matter) has not suffered any financial loss, and so are not entitled to any compensation (except, perhaps, for court costs and legal fees). Please accept my apologies if this point: has been previously discussed to death; is actually trivial, naive, or sophistic; is considered inappropriate to comp.lang.ada or gnu.misc.discuss. ------------------------------------- Nick Roberts ------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Phil Hunt @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com> nickroberts@callnetuk.com "Nick Roberts" writes: > Wading rather trepidly into this issue, and with the understanding that I am > not any kind of legal expert (in UK or US law), I have wondered if there is > a potential problem with the GPL and similar licences, which I'll try to > describe. > > Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A > (paying nothing for it). Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a > work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) > for a substantial amount of money. > > Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is > derived from a GPL work; what can they do? They can demand that B give them the source. They cannot sue anyone, unless B told C that they owned the copyright to all the program they sold (in which case it is fraud). It is perfectly legal to distribute GPL'ed software for money. -- Phil Hunt....philh@vision25.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Phil Hunt @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <925098459snz@vision25.demon.co.uk>, philh@vision25.demon.co.uk wrote: > They can demand that B give them the source. Well they can demand it, but if B says no, it is A who has to do something about it. The GPL does not compel people to give sources, it just fails to license you to redistribute sources without the sources, so if B refuses to give C sources, they are violating A's copyright. C has no standing in the matter. It's all fairly straightforward, and of course in practice these kind of marginal situations rarely arise, so in practice the details can be left moot without really affecting anyone significantly. One very curious case would be the case in which the copyright holder, A, gives B a program, ostensibly under the GPL, but then refuses to give B the sources. The result would be that B could not redistribute the program since they do not have a valid license to do so, since they cannot meet the source requirement for the redistribution. There is no copyright issue here, but presumably B can sue A for breach of contract (for not meeting the requirements of the agreed on license vehicle). I must say I have never heard of anything like the occurrences discussed here happening. The only GPL-shady thing I have heard even rumours of at all is the business of distributing GPL'ed software for proprietary chips together with a non-disclosure forbidding disclosure of anything regarding the chip, including any GPL'ed software that runs on it. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > One very curious case would be the case in which the > copyright holder, A, gives B a program, ostensibly under > the GPL, but then refuses to give B the sources. That could easily be the case if A is a commercial binary-distributor and binary-distribution recipient, B, let the written offer expire before asking A for the source, per GPL2-3(b). -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My PGP fingerprint: 15 6E C7 91 5F AF 17 C4 24 93 CB 6B EB 38 B5 E5 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Phil Hunt @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com>, "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: > On the other hand, it seems > to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), > B can argue that A > (or any other party, for that matter) has not suffered > any financial loss, > and so are not entitled to any compensation (except, > perhaps, for court > costs and legal fees). B has violated a copyright. This is a statutory matter. You should look at copyright law in more detail if you want to think more about this (detailed discussion of copyright law seems to far off topic for CLA for me to wade in here :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Florian Weimer ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Tim Smith @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: >Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A >(paying nothing for it). Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a >work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) >for a substantial amount of money. > >Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is >derived from a GPL work; what can they do? It seems to me that if party C >attempts to sue B, B can argue that C is not the injured party, because it >is not C's licence who's terms were breached. On the other hand, it seems >to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), B can argue that A Assuming party A is the copyright owner (if not, replace A with the owner), then A does not sue on behalf of C. A sues for himself for copyright infringement. --Tim Smith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes: > Please accept my apologies if this point: has been previously discussed to > death; is actually trivial, naive, or sophistic; is considered inappropriate > to comp.lang.ada or gnu.misc.discuss. I think it has. AFAIK that's one of the reasons why the FSF requires a copyright assignment for software which is part of the GNU Project. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Florian Weimer @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 6 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts (nickroberts@callnetuk.com) wrote: : Wading rather trepidly into this issue, and with the understanding that I am : not any kind of legal expert (in UK or US law), I have wondered if there is : a potential problem with the GPL and similar licences, which I'll try to : describe. : Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A : (paying nothing for it). Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a : work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) : for a substantial amount of money. : Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is : derived from a GPL work; what can they do? It seems to me that if party C : attempts to sue B, B can argue that C is not the injured party, because it : is not C's licence who's terms were breached. On the other hand, it seems : to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), B can argue that A : (or any other party, for that matter) has not suffered any financial loss, : and so are not entitled to any compensation (except, perhaps, for court : costs and legal fees). A lot will depend on the details of the transactions, but generally A can sue B for copyright infringement and C can sue B for fraud. Paul Hughett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g1sdh$nvo$2@netnews.upenn.edu>, hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: > and C can sue B for fraud. You mean based on the failure to use the proper licensing terms. Certainly there is no fraud involved in charging for the software even if B got it free. This is not only an acceptable occurrence, it is a *desirable* occurrence in many situations. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar (robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com) wrote: : In article <7g1sdh$nvo$2@netnews.upenn.edu>, : hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: : > and C can sue B for fraud. : You mean based on the failure to use the proper licensing : terms. Certainly there is no fraud involved in charging : for the software even if B got it free. This is not only : an acceptable occurrence, it is a *desirable* occurrence : in many situations. I am assuming that B misrepresented the software as their own and failed to inform C that C is free to use and/or redistribute the software under the GPL; then I think C has a pretty good case for fraud. If B sells the software in a convenient form for C and/or with support and hand-holding to get started, WITH correct information about its provenance and licensing, then you are quite correct; this is both legal and a good thing. But that wasn't the situation I understood from the question. Paul Hughett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` spblunt ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: > I am assuming that B misrepresented the software as their > own and failed to inform C that C is free to use and/or > redistribute the software under the GPL; then I think C > has a pretty good case for fraud. But in fact C is NOT free to further distribute this software, since C does not hold a license. C has been granted a license neither by B nor by A, thus C cannot copy the software at all. The question of whether C has any standing depends on how the situation was presented to C. For example, if there was a message attached saying "this is an unauthorized copy, but we won't tell if you don't", then C would have little recourse. C as the recipient of an undisclosed illegal copy of software would definitely have recourse against B if the copy had been represented as legal. > > If B sells the software in a convenient form for C and/or with support > and hand-holding to get started, WITH correct information about its > provenance and licensing, then you are quite correct; this is both > legal and a good thing. But that wasn't the situation I understood > from the question. > > Paul Hughett > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: spblunt @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > In article <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, > hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: >> I am assuming that B misrepresented the software as their >> own and failed to inform C that C is free to use and/or >> redistribute the software under the GPL; then I think C >> has a pretty good case for fraud. > But in fact C is NOT free to further distribute this > software, since C does not hold a license. C has been > granted a license neither by B nor by A, thus C cannot > copy the software at all. That was what I was sort of getting at, they could sue for the right to modify and redistribute, but they probably couldn't sue for their money since B wasn't wrong in charging for the software. Just reading the GPL again, it says <quote> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. </quote> Note "give any other recipients of the program a copy of this Licence along with the program". Does that mean you need not tell them about the GPL until the money has changed hands? cya ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` spblunt @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <mh23g7.ajc.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Note "give any other recipients of the program a copy of > this Licence along with the program". Does that mean you > need not tell them about the GPL until the money has > changed hands? You can sell a box with a mystery gift in it and give no information at all if you want, so yes, of course the answer is yes. But so what? If you are concerned that B is selling something to C that they have acquired from A at a cheaper cost, then I would say: a) this happens all the time, it is what commerce is about! b) This could happen with either GPL'ed software or non-GPL'ed software, since there is no connection between the GPL and the price in $$$. I think that part of the premise of this thread is that the significant issue is what B paid to A, but that is in fact completely irrelevant to this thread. Yes, C might have paid more than they need to, but that happens all the time (just look at ebay auctions!), and there is nothing fraudulent about trying to sell things for the highest price you can get for them. If someone auctions a copy of GNAT 3.11p on ebay, and manages to get someone to pay them $10,000 for it, then they have located an ebay auction sucker, but there is no fraud involved! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` spblunt @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 2 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g2l0f$58g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >But in fact C is NOT free to further distribute this >software, since C does not hold a license. C has been >granted a license neither by B nor by A, thus C cannot >copy the software at all. No, C _is_ free to do so. The GPL is granted to everyone - it's a license on the copyright, not a particular copy. That is C has, in fact, been granted a license by A, regardless of what B told them, or intends. At least, it has been granted a license to the original work, and copyrights apply to derivative works as well (not necessarily the bare modifications, but the derivative work itself, after modification). Of course, IANAL. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Tim Smith @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > No, C _is_ free to do so. The GPL is granted to everyone - it's a >license on the copyright, not a particular copy. That is C has, in >fact, been granted a license by A, regardless of what B told them, or >intends. At least, it has been granted a license to the original work, >and copyrights apply to derivative works as well (not necessarily the >bare modifications, but the derivative work itself, after modification). Close, but not quite correct. To distribute a derivative work, you need permission of both the original copyright owner and the owner of the copyright on the modifications. When someone makes a derivative work by combining works licensed under incompatible terms, what results is a work that is not distributable at all. --Tim Smith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g2v6u$a3p$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > No, C _is_ free to do so. The GPL is granted to everyone - it's a >license on the copyright, not a particular copy. That is C has, in >fact, been granted a license by A, regardless of what B told them, or I don't think so. When C gets the software from B, he also gets the license that B specifies, and he's bound by that license. If B was required to distribute the code under the GPL, but didn't, he violated his license, and wasn't authorized to distribute the software in the first place. But he isn't automatically assumed to have distributed the source with a proper license. The GPL has a clause that says that if B's license is terminated because he violates the GPL's terms, third parties who have received copies under the GPL do not lose their license. But I don't think that applies to this case, since C didn't receive their copy under the GPL. In other words, it says that if C was given the right to make copies, they don't lose them because B has lost them; but if C was never given the right to make copies (because B distributed under his own, more restrictive license) they don't suddenly get them when B's license is terminated. >intends. At least, it has been granted a license to the original work, >and copyrights apply to derivative works as well (not necessarily the >bare modifications, but the derivative work itself, after modification). > Of course, IANAL. NAI (Neither Am I). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <NllV2.96$jw4.11389@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >In article <7g2v6u$a3p$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, >Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: >> No, C _is_ free to do so. The GPL is granted to everyone - it's a >>license on the copyright, not a particular copy. That is C has, in >>fact, been granted a license by A, regardless of what B told them, or > >I don't think so. When C gets the software from B, he also gets the >license that B specifies, and he's bound by that license. If B was >required to distribute the code under the GPL, but didn't, he violated his >license, and wasn't authorized to distribute the software in the first >place. But he isn't automatically assumed to have distributed the source >with a proper license. That's something a judge would decide, I think. You should take a look at Chapter 5 of Title 17 (the Copyright act). The penalties against an infringer are _very_ harsh. Not only is the original copyright holder owed any losses he incurred from the infringers use (in the case of a GPL author, probably very little), he is also owed all profits from the infringing activity (which could be a lot). And that's the tip of the iceberg. http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ > >The GPL has a clause that says that if B's license is terminated because he >violates the GPL's terms, third parties who have received copies under the >GPL do not lose their license. But I don't think that applies to this >case, since C didn't receive their copy under the GPL. In other words, it >says that if C was given the right to make copies, they don't lose them >because B has lost them; but if C was never given the right to make copies >(because B distributed under his own, more restrictive license) they don't >suddenly get them when B's license is terminated. But B has no right to unilaterally license derivative works. In fact, I checked out the law: (title 17) ----------------- - 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. --------------------------------------------- The way I read part (a), any modifications to the GPL'ed software that aren't independent of the GPL'ed software, are either distributed under the GPL (as an authorized use of the right to derivative works) or are used unlawfully and thus _do_not_have_copyright_protection. I could be wrong, of course, cause the wording is pretty strange. I'm thinking a demonstrative example of how this rule would apply is if you published a book where the first half was a revised (derivative) version of someone else's work (unauthorized), and the second half was totally original. It seems to me that the author would not have copyright protection on the first half, though he would on the second. So it reads to me as though, for unlawfully made derivative works, the original copyright holder retains all the existent copyrights on the derivative work (since the infringer is denied such rights by part (a), and no one else can claim rights to derivative works). Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 2 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar (robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com) wrote: : In article <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, : hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: : > I am assuming that B misrepresented the software as their : > own and failed to inform C that C is free to use and/or : > redistribute the software under the GPL; then I think C : > has a pretty good case for fraud. : But in fact C is NOT free to further distribute this : software, since C does not hold a license. C has been : granted a license neither by B nor by A, thus C cannot : copy the software at all. Paragraph 7 of the GPL (version 2) grants C the right to use/copy/modify/etc the software, even if B made and distributed the copy in violation of the GPL. C arguably has the same rights with respect to B's modifications of the code, but I would want to do some more study and thinking before I would be really sure of it. Paul Hughett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) writes: > Robert Dewar (robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com) wrote: > : In article <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, > : hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: > : > I am assuming that B misrepresented the software as their > : > own and failed to inform C that C is free to use and/or > : > redistribute the software under the GPL; then I think C > : > has a pretty good case for fraud. > > : But in fact C is NOT free to further distribute this > : software, since C does not hold a license. C has been > : granted a license neither by B nor by A, thus C cannot > : copy the software at all. > > Paragraph 7 of the GPL (version 2) grants C the right to > use/copy/modify/etc the software, even if B made and distributed the > copy in violation of the GPL. C arguably has the same rights > with respect to B's modifications of the code, but I would want to do > some more study and thinking before I would be really sure of it. But the GPL in this scenario covered only the transfer of software from A to B. C has no right whatsoever to demand that he might do anything with the software in question if B did not license him to do this. The best C can do is tell A about the situation so that A can sue B for breach of license. If A is not interested in defending his license in court, this does not give C any more rights to the stuff he received from B. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g4jme$5sq$3@netnews.upenn.edu>, Paul Hughett <hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu> wrote: >Paragraph 7 of the GPL (version 2) grants C the right to >use/copy/modify/etc the software, even if B made and distributed the >copy in violation of the GPL. C arguably has the same rights >with respect to B's modifications of the code, but I would want to do >some more study and thinking before I would be really sure of it. I don't see that in paragraph 7. It describes the situation where other considerations (such as patent infringement) contradict the GPL, and says that the consequence of this is that you can't distribute the program at all. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote: : In article <7g4jme$5sq$3@netnews.upenn.edu>, : Paul Hughett <hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu> wrote: : >Paragraph 7 of the GPL (version 2) grants C the right to : >use/copy/modify/etc the software, even if B made and distributed the : >copy in violation of the GPL. C arguably has the same rights : >with respect to B's modifications of the code, but I would want to do : >some more study and thinking before I would be really sure of it. : I don't see that in paragraph 7. It describes the situation where other : considerations (such as patent infringement) contradict the GPL, and says : that the consequence of this is that you can't distribute the program at : all. One of us must have a garbled copy or got the wrong section by accident. The paragraph that I am referring to reads as follows: 7. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipient's exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Okay, not that we are both reading from the same text, do you still disagree with my interpretation? Also note that B does not have the right to distribute the software--even his own modifications--under any license other than the GPL. That's why they call the GPL a virus. Paul Hughett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Paul Hughett wrote: > Also note that B does not have the right to distribute the software--even > his own modifications--under any license other than the GPL. That's > why they call the GPL a virus. B could distribute patches, though, for their modifications and distribute them under any licence they please. (A standard diff patch wouldn't be acceptable as it includes lines of context which would make the patch a derived work; an ed diff would be acceptable, however.) D (i.e. any one) could get the patches from B, possibly under another licence, and apply them to the GPL'd code. D (or B) could not redistribute the patched sources or binaries, however, if the patch were incompatible with the {L|}GPL. Two instances which come to mind of people actually doing this are some patches to Motif (that's all I remember) and the Minix-vmd patches (before Minix was redistributable at all). Cheers, Joshua. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Arromdee wrote: > In article <37264DE6.7AA43E60@noah.dhs.org>, > Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@noah.dhs.org> wrote: > >> Also note that B does not have the right to distribute the software--even > >> his own modifications--under any license other than the GPL. That's > >> why they call the GPL a virus. > >B could distribute patches, though, for their modifications and > >distribute them under any licence they please. (A standard diff patch > >wouldn't be acceptable as it includes lines of context which would make > >the patch a derived work; an ed diff would be acceptable, however.) > Not with the FSF's interpretation which says that "user does the link" is > impermissible. "User does the patch" would be similar. Can't be. The licence is not a EULA (which is unenforceable anyway, at least until 2B goes into effect)--it doesn't limit what you can do with anything (refer to section 5 of the GPL). So you're free to mishmash GPL'd code and any other code as much as you like. A user is free to link code as he or she pleases. This is interesting with regard to the KDE/Qt situation: a user could freely link KDE with Qt, but distributing it would be unlicenced IMHO. [1] Courts will hopefully rule against the offensive provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Arromdee wrote: > According to the FSF, you might be able to do that, but nobody would be > allowed to give you code with a stricter license, whose use is to be > mishmashed together with GPL code. If someone does that, that is considered > a disguised way of distributing the combination, and since distributing the > combination is not allowed, neither is distributing the component. You could distribute ed context scripts however you wish. What you *do* with the ed script is irrelevant. Hmmm... maybe this could be used to sneak KDE into Debian <grin>. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net>, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@tcp.com> wrote: >In article <372753FF.11F381CF@noah.dhs.org>, >Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@noah.dhs.org> wrote: >>> >B could distribute patches, though, for their modifications and >>> >distribute them under any licence they please. (A standard diff patch >>> >wouldn't be acceptable as it includes lines of context which would make >>> >the patch a derived work; an ed diff would be acceptable, however.) >>> Not with the FSF's interpretation which says that "user does the link" is >>> impermissible. "User does the patch" would be similar. >>Can't be. The licence is not a EULA (which is unenforceable anyway, >>at least until 2B goes into effect)--it doesn't limit what you can do >>with anything (refer to section 5 of the GPL). So you're free to >>mishmash GPL'd code and any other code as much as you like. > >According to the FSF, you might be able to do that, but nobody would be >allowed to give you code with a stricter license, whose use is to be >mishmashed together with GPL code. If someone does that, that is considered >a disguised way of distributing the combination, and since distributing the >combination is not allowed, neither is distributing the component. > >No, I don't believe it either, but that's the way it's done. Well, I think it would be legal for a company to distribute patches (under a stricter license even), as long as they did not also distribute the original work. Not that I would want to encourage that behaviour. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g7tlc$j5g$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) wrote: > Well, I think it would be legal for a company to > distribute patches (under a stricter license even), as > long as they did not also distribute the original work. > Not that I would want to encourage that behaviour. > > Lynn Lynn, you are expressing legal opinions here without giving a basis for the opinion. As I noted in a previous post, Richard Stallman *strongly* disagrees with this assessment. He takes what seems to be the quite reasonable position that a patch file which only has meaning with regard to a work A is from a legal point of view a derived work, which would be protected. Note that the integrity of the GPL depends on this position, so this is not a trivial point. It has not been specifically adjudicated in court, but you should be aware that if you take action to follow your legal opinion, you might trigger a court to make the decision :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-29 0:00 ` [Offtopic for cl.ada] " Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net>, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@tcp.com> wrote: >The way I heard it before, his position was that distributing a patch was >contributory infringement, since it's only useful when other people get GPL >software and combine it with the patch. I didn't buy that version; you >can't have contributory infringement without direct infringement and getting >the GPL software is not direct infringement. > >The position that the patch itself is a derived work, rather than that the >patch is contributory infringement which leads people to make derived works, >seems a lot more defensible to me. It also seems as scary as the first one, >since if you patch Windows this now means that your patch is a derived work of >Windows and Microsoft can sue you if you distribute it.... 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? 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). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* [Offtopic for cl.ada] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 <grin>. > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-29 0:00 ` [Offtopic for cl.ada] " Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote: : 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? : 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). The case is Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the claim that Galoob's enhancement device did not infringe on Nintendo's game. Paul Hughett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gce89$94q$2@netnews.upenn.edu>, hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: > The case is Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. The > Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the claim that Galoob's > enhancement device did not infringe on Nintendo's game. On the game? or on the patent? I had (perhaps mis)remembered this as a patent case. I do not recall a claim that the Galoob device was a deriviative work which violated the copyright (which is what would be relevant to the thread of discussion here). -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g8fid$c7c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7g7tlc$j5g$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, > owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) wrote: >> Well, I think it would be legal for a company to >> distribute patches (under a stricter license even), as >> long as they did not also distribute the original work. >> Not that I would want to encourage that behaviour. >> >> Lynn > > >Lynn, you are expressing legal opinions here without >giving a basis for the opinion. As I noted in a previous Well, I guess it boils down to this question: Can I publish a book that describes how to physically modify a second book to create a third book? While the 3rd book is clearly a derived work, it is not so clear that the 1st would be - it could be considered fair use. Indeed, if you look at the question of whether it hurts the market for the first, you could only say "no", since performing the modifications requires having the 2nd book. There are other considerations, too, of course. It would depend on the particular patch file distributed, I think. But like I said, I think distributing such a patch would be grounds for revoking the GPL on the original source, just not a copyright infringement. The effect would be that the purchaser would have to obtain the 2 from different sources - it's not exactly a goldmine. (The revoking would be because distributing them both _would_ constitute a derived work - in my opinion, of course). >post, Richard Stallman *strongly* disagrees with this >assessment. He takes what seems to be the quite reasonable >position that a patch file which only has meaning with >regard to a work A is from a legal point of view a derived >work, which would be protected. Note that the integrity >of the GPL depends on this position, so this is not a >trivial point. Well, once again, it would depend on the particular patch file. For example, you can publish a topical index to a book, and that is not a derived work, but a fair use. (from "The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law" by William F. Patry). Or how about a book of annotations to a text? That would qualify as "comment" under the fair use doctrine, and I think a patch file (particularly a source patch file) could reasonably be characterized this way. I also think RMS's stance on the use of function calls from a GPL'ed shared library is unreasonable (though it's not unreasonable when using a static linker). As far as I can see, writing a function call to a shared library is equivalent to a reference to a scientific paper. Static linking is equivalent to including it as an appendix. The second is clearly an infringement, and the first is not. >It has not been specifically adjudicated >in court, but you should be aware that if you take action >to follow your legal opinion, you might trigger a court >to make the decision :-) Don't worry, that's not my intention. I don't have any intention of writing non-free software (I don't really intend to write non-GPL'ed software, but I might relent on that in particular circumstances, as long as the result is still free). Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Aidan Skinner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 29 Apr 1999 03:46:08 GMT, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: >to a text? That would qualify as "comment" under the fair use doctrine, >and I think a patch file (particularly a source patch file) could >reasonably be characterized this way. A patch file isn't an annotation (those *are* comments ;>), but a modification based on an origional work. I think it very clearly violates the spirit of the GPL, though perhaps not the letter. OTOH this is all meaningless unless and until it's brought up in court. - Aidan -- "Rotary barrel death stars: for when you absoloutely, positively, have to obliterate every planet in the system" http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/ http://www.gla.ac.uk/Clubs/WebSoc/~9704075s/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g7tlc$j5g$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) wrote: > Well, I think it would be legal for a company to distribute patches > (under a stricter license even), as long as they did not also distribute > the original work. Not that I would want to encourage that behaviour. > > Lynn It would be useful when people state legal opinions of this nature, if they indicate the source (e.g. their own legal expertise, or court cases). Otherwise it is very hard to identify substantive input from guesses about what people think should be the case from an informal point of view. The trouble with the latter is that so often "common sense" can mislead you when it comes to legal issues. This is particularly true in the software copyright business (I base this observation on my experience in acting as an expert witness in several court cases involving alledged copyright infringement, and on having read the principle court decisions in this area). In addition, the field is changing very rapidly as congress takes action on a number of bills that have a significant effect on copyrights in general, and software copyrights in particular. An example: If you have a (legitimate) copy of a program on your hard disk, then does executing it involve making a copy? Tricky question, and courts have disagreed, it is not a trivial question to answer at all! The point is that in some sense there is a copy in memory .. what sense? Well that's the question to be answered! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372753FF.11F381CF@noah.dhs.org>, "Joshua E. Rodd" <jerodd@noah.dhs.org> wrote: > Not with the FSF's interpretation which says that "user > does the link" is impermissible. "User does the patch" > would be similar. I specifically discussed this issue with Richard Stallman recently. His position is that a patch file, even one without context, is so dependent on the original as to be equivalent to a derived work, and he is confident that a court would agree with this interpretation. > Can't be No one can be that definite (unless you are a judge :-). I would certainly agree with Richard Stallman on this point, but of course it would require a court decision to get a definitive view. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > I specifically discussed this issue with Richard Stallman > recently. His position is that a patch file, even one > without context, is so dependent on the original as to > be equivalent to a derived work, and he is confident that > a court would agree with this interpretation. This is very true. > No one can be that definite (unless you are a judge :-). > I would certainly agree with Richard Stallman on this > point, but of course it would require a court decision > to get a definitive view. Yes. If the patch were being used in a way the clearly violated the spirit of the GPL, then the court probably would rule that the licence were violated. Come to think of it, any patch probably *is* a derived work as it takes input from the GPL'd code. <ponders a `clean-room' patch using specialised patch software> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3727B37D.A4A5192E@noah.dhs.org>, "Joshua E. Rodd" <jerodd@noah.dhs.org> wrote: > Come to think of it, any patch probably *is* a derived > work as it takes input from the GPL'd code. Note that this is quite an important issue with respect to the distribution requirements of the GPL. Suppose two companies want to work together on a super secret GCC implementation for a super secret chip (I will leave the imaginative reader to fill in appropriate details). They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since these would have to be distributed under the GPL *without* any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure agreements). But if patches were not covered, they could distribute patches. It was specifically in this context that I discussed the issue with Richard Stallman, and his view is that this attempt to subvert the intention of the GPL is not in accordance with the license. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since > these would have to be distributed under the GPL *without* > any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure > agreements). In practice, does it really matter? Just agree not to release it, and don't worry about non-disclosure agreements. It's not quite as paranoid, but it should still work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <37287742.F8EE7E23@aasaa.ofe.org>, David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote: > Robert Dewar wrote: > > They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since > > these would have to be distributed under the GPL > >*without* > > any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure > > agreements). > > In practice, does it really matter? Just agree not to > release it, and > don't worry about non-disclosure agreements. It's not > quite as paranoid, > but it should still work. In practice this will work fine, but unfortunately lawyers for certain large companies are unlikely to be happy at this kind of informal protection of their trade secrets. Remember that you protect trade secrets for two reasons. 1. To keep things secret 2. To be seen to be taking due diligence in keeping things secret, so that legally the trade secrets retain their status as secrets. I am afraid that the informal passing of GPL'ed material that you suggest, while it may meet criterion 1, may fail to meet criterion 2. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. [not found] ` <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net> 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 3 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >Suppose two companies want to work together on a super >secret GCC implementation for a super secret chip (I will >leave the imaginative reader to fill in appropriate >details). > >They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since >these would have to be distributed under the GPL *without* >any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure >agreements). > >But if patches were not covered, they could distribute >patches. > >It was specifically in this context that I discussed the >issue with Richard Stallman, and his view is that this >attempt to subvert the intention of the GPL is not in >accordance with the license. > I think this depends. If the two above companies are A and B, and a third company - let's call it I, just to be different - develops a supersecret chip, then company I might put A and B under identical NDA's about the chip, that has a clause stating that information derived fromt the documents may only be shared with other companies under an identical NDA. Then, in fact, A and B can both share their code and satisfy both the NDA and the GPL - nothing in the GPL requires that you make your modifications public, only that you make them available to people you distribute the software to. (this assumes "I" isn't the one that gives them the GPL'ed source code to start with) On the other hand, if it was A that was developing the chip and it put B under NDA, it could not give B the source code changes without either violating the GPL or partially nullifying the NDA (with regards to any information in the modified source code). I am a full supporter of the GPL, but I also love these little logic games. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lynn Winebarger wrote: > I think this depends. If the two above companies are A and B, and a > third company - let's call it I, just to be different - develops a > supersecret chip, then company I might put A and B under identical NDA's > about the chip, that has a clause stating that information derived fromt > the documents may only be shared with other companies under an identical > NDA. Then, in fact, A and B can both share their code and satisfy both > the NDA and the GPL - nothing in the GPL requires that you make your > modifications public, only that you make them available to people you > distribute the software to. (this assumes "I" isn't the one that gives > them the GPL'ed source code to start with) Ah, but let's say that the relationship between A and B soured. A decides that B has done it a great wrong, and decides that the damage inflicted to B outweighs the damage inflicted to themself by letting the code out (it might even benefit A). B would be hard-pressed to take A to court and hold them to their NDA about the modifications given the licence under which the original sources came. > On the other hand, if it was A that was developing the chip and it > put B under NDA, it could not give B the source code changes without > either violating the GPL or partially nullifying the NDA (with regards > to any information in the modified source code). Right--it would take cooperation (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing). But A could *not* restrict B's rights to make mods to GPL'd code freed. > I am a full supporter of the GPL, but I also love these little logic > games. It's fun, isn't it? <grin> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3728F132.116D44D1@noah.dhs.org>, Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@noah.dhs.org> wrote: >Lynn Winebarger wrote: >> I think this depends. If the two above companies are A and B, and a >> third company - let's call it I, just to be different - develops a >> supersecret chip, then company I might put A and B under identical NDA's >> about the chip, that has a clause stating that information derived fromt >> the documents may only be shared with other companies under an identical >> NDA. Then, in fact, A and B can both share their code and satisfy both >> the NDA and the GPL - nothing in the GPL requires that you make your >> modifications public, only that you make them available to people you >> distribute the software to. (this assumes "I" isn't the one that gives >> them the GPL'ed source code to start with) > >Ah, but let's say that the relationship between A and B soured. A decides >that B has done it a great wrong, and decides that the damage inflicted to >B outweighs the damage inflicted to themself by letting the code out (it >might even benefit A). > >B would be hard-pressed to take A to court and hold them to their NDA >about the modifications given the licence under which the original sources >came. > Oh, yeah. I'm assuming the only worry was about breaking the NDA, not about the modification being freely distributed. I'm obviously referring to situation like the one where Intel provides the docs on their new chips to Linux developers, who share code amongst each other and will be released as free eventually anyway. I wasn't referring to one were "I" was some sort of shadow company made for the devious purpose of restraining free code. That would be different. Of course, A is still bound by its contract with "I." Unless there's some legal way to show it was only a devious scheme and really equivalent to B's being the source of the NDA, rather than their being independent entities. I haven't taken the time to do any reading on that subject though. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Richard E. Hawkins Esq. @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: >In article <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, >Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >>Suppose two companies want to work together on a super >>secret GCC implementation for a super secret chip (I will >>leave the imaginative reader to fill in appropriate >>details). >>They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since >>these would have to be distributed under the GPL *without* >>any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure >>agreements). ... >>It was specifically in this context that I discussed the >>issue with Richard Stallman, and his view is that this >>attempt to subvert the intention of the GPL is not in >>accordance with the license. > I think this depends. If the two above companies are A and B, and a >third company - let's call it I, just to be different - develops a >supersecret chip, then company I might put A and B under identical NDA's >about the chip, that has a clause stating that information derived fromt >the documents may only be shared with other companies under an identical >NDA. Then, in fact, A and B can both share their code and satisfy both >the NDA and the GPL - nothing in the GPL requires that you make your >modifications public, only that you make them available to people you >distribute the software to. (this assumes "I" isn't the one that gives >them the GPL'ed source code to start with) However, under this chip development scenario, the licensee of the GPL is the conglomerate/joint enterprise/whatever of A, B, and I, complete with their NDA's, which can internally distribute it's modified version. There is no subversion here; it's simply a question of "who is the licensee." -- These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gpqms$7qj$1@eyry.econ>, hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) wrote: > However, under this chip development scenario, the licensee of the GPL > is the conglomerate/joint enterprise/whatever of A, B, and I, > complete with their NDA's, which can internally distribute it's > modified version. There is no subversion here; it's simply a question > of "who is the licensee." > -- > These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer. That does not work, unless there is a legal entity involved, not at all clear that this could be set up. A license needs a legal entity, either an individual, or a corporate entity. A collection of companies is not an entity in this regard. It would be possible to establish an entity for this purpose, but it would not be able to distribute to the other entities involved. It is quite intentional that the GPL makes this kind of cooperation without open disclosure difficult! Of course ultimately a court has to decide what is and what is not valid, but certainly in the case of GCC, the copyright holder, Richard Stallman, would probably object to any such dubious setup, as best I understand his position. RObert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Richard E. Hawkins Esq. @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gpvsh$tdm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7gpqms$7qj$1@eyry.econ>, > hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) wrote: >> However, under this chip development scenario, the licensee of the GPL >> is the conglomerate/joint enterprise/whatever of A, B, and I, >> complete with their NDA's, which can internally distribute it's >> modified version. There is no subversion here; it's simply a question >> of "who is the licensee." >That does not work, unless there is a legal entity involved, not at all >clear that this could be set up. A license needs a legal entity, either >an individual, or a corporate entity. A collection of companies is not >an entity in this regard. It would be possible to establish an entity >for this purpose, but it would not be able to distribute to the other >entities involved. To start with, such an operation would be a partnership, unless a contract or other action gave it another status (venture, corporation, etc.). It certainly is a legal entity. Additionally, it is not the collection of companies, but the development effort; at first impression (which is as far as I'm going :), it doesn't appear that this entity would be able to distribute to the to the companies that formed it (though thoughtful planning might make it so, but i don't have time to work with it [and noon'es paid my retainer :) ]). >It is quite intentional that the GPL makes this kind of cooperation without >open disclosure difficult! It only makes it difficult without a minimally competent lawyer. However, it would prevent external distribution of binaries. >Of course ultimately a court has to decide what is and what is not valid, >but certainly in the case of GCC, the copyright holder, Richard Stallman, >would probably object to any such dubious setup, as best I understand his >position. I won't grant you that it's dubious; these are rather simple legal principles at work. However, all happens is that there is an internal version of GCC, which could be useful during development, but could never be released in binary only form to the customers who buy the chip. Also, RMS's opinion on what is valid weighs in at about five billion and one--after every one else on the planet. In interpreting a document, the opinion of the author is the *very* last thing to consider. For that matter, general contract principles call for interpreting any ambiguity *against* the author. rick, esq. -- These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gqjpa$9cp$1@eyry.econ>, hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) wrote: > Also, RMS's opinion on what is valid weighs in at about five billion > and one--after every one else on the planet. In interpreting > a document, the opinion of the author is the *very* last thing > to consider. For that matter, general contract principles call > for interpreting any ambiguity *against* the author. Well I would not be so quick to assume this. After all the GPL was reviewed by lawyers whose retainer *was* paid :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gqrbf$mun$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7gqjpa$9cp$1@eyry.econ>, > hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) wrote: > >> Also, RMS's opinion on what is valid weighs in at about five billion >> and one--after every one else on the planet. In interpreting >> a document, the opinion of the author is the *very* last thing >> to consider. For that matter, general contract principles call >> for interpreting any ambiguity *against* the author. > >Well I would not be so quick to assume this. After all the GPL >was reviewed by lawyers whose retainer *was* paid :-) The GPL never specifically addresses the issue we're discussing. It's all post facto posturing by RMS, as he tries to figure out how to apply the GPL to situations that didn't exist when it was written. What he feels is a logical extension of the spirit of the GPL may not in fact be supported by copyright law. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <r2lY2.447$jw4.33999@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > The GPL never specifically addresses the issue we're discussing. It's all > post facto posturing by RMS, as he tries to figure out how to apply the GPL > to situations that didn't exist when it was written. What he feels is a > logical extension of the spirit of the GPL may not in fact be supported by > copyright law. By the way Barry, perhaps it comes as a surprise to you, but the concept of patch files is very very old, probably nearly as old as the concept of programs. And yes, of course the issue of patch files has been considered from the start, there is nothing "post facto" about this, and of course this situation has existed from the inception of the GPL. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gsrjo$g7i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <r2lY2.447$jw4.33999@burlma1-snr2>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > >> The GPL never specifically addresses the issue we're discussing. It's all >> post facto posturing by RMS, as he tries to figure out how to apply the GPL >> to situations that didn't exist when it was written. What he feels is a >> logical extension of the spirit of the GPL may not in fact be supported by >> copyright law. > >By the way Barry, perhaps it comes as a surprise to you, but the concept >of patch files is very very old, probably nearly as old as the concept >of programs. And yes, of course the issue of patch files has been >considered from the start, there is nothing "post facto" about this, >and of course this situation has existed from the inception of the GPL. I wasn't referring only to patch files, but all the varieties of things that have been discussed in this thread or which RMS considers to be derived works, such as dynamically-linked objects, plug-ins, etc. Some of them are not necessarily new concepts (Multics has used dynamic linking since the 60's) but didn't see widespread use until relatively recently, so there hasn't been much experience with applying copyright law to them. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <jHmY2.473$jw4.33999@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > I wasn't referring only to patch files, but all the varieties of things > that have been discussed in this thread or which RMS considers to be > derived works, such as dynamically-linked objects, plug-ins, etc. Some of > them are not necessarily new concepts (Multics has used dynamic linking > since the 60's) but didn't see widespread use until relatively recently, so > there hasn't been much experience with applying copyright law to them. This thread has been specifically about patch files, not about other varieties of things. If you want to broaden it out fine, but probably you should start another thread and restrict it to gnu.misc.discuss. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gt0is$kq5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <jHmY2.473$jw4.33999@burlma1-snr2>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > >> I wasn't referring only to patch files, but all the varieties of things >> that have been discussed in this thread or which RMS considers to be >> derived works, such as dynamically-linked objects, plug-ins, etc. Some of >> them are not necessarily new concepts (Multics has used dynamic linking >> since the 60's) but didn't see widespread use until relatively recently, so >> there hasn't been much experience with applying copyright law to them. > >This thread has been specifically about patch files, not about other varieties >of things. If you want to broaden it out fine, but probably you should start >another thread and restrict it to gnu.misc.discuss. This thread has many branches discussing many different things. I barely remember what it was originally about (the original message has expired on my server and I don't feel like searching DejaNews); I think this may be the thread that started with a question about how the GPL related to Ada and C++ templates (I think that's why it was cross-posted to comp.lang.ada). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Roger Espel Llima 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <qXnY2.481$jw4.34640@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > In article <7gt0is$kq5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > This thread has many branches discussing many different things. I barely > remember what it was originally about (the original message has expired on > my server and I don't feel like searching DejaNews); I think this may be > the thread that started with a question about how the GPL related to Ada > and C++ templates (I think that's why it was cross-posted to > comp.lang.ada). > > -- > Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com If you have trouble keeping track of threads, I strongly suggest using dejanews to read your newsgroup traffic. The nice new thread following software, with the graphical diagrams keeping track of subthreads, will avoid the "barely remember" phenomenon, and help you to avoid going off track :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Roger Espel Llima 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Roger Espel Llima @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gt7qu$rlo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >If you have trouble keeping track of threads, I strongly suggest using >dejanews to read your newsgroup traffic. The nice new thread following >software, with the graphical diagrams keeping track of subthreads, will >avoid the "barely remember" phenomenon, and help you to avoid going off >track :-) last time I tried reading a newsgroup on DejaNews, I couldn't find a way to make it remember which posts I'd seen, from one time to the next. (to be fair, it wouldn't be easy for a web-based newsreading service to do that; they'd basically have to make you log in and keep your .newsrc- equivalent on their server. that, or give you a giant cookie, probably big enough that the browser would throw it away) anyway.. have they fixed that? -- Roger Espel Llima, espel@llaic.u-clermont1.fr http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/espel/index.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Roger Espel Llima @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-07 0:00 ` dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gt9k8$2pl$1@nef.ens.fr>, espel@news.ens.fr (Roger Espel Llima) wrote: > In article <7gt7qu$rlo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > last time I tried reading a newsgroup on DejaNews, I couldn't find a way > to make it remember which posts I'd seen, from one time to the next. > > (to be fair, it wouldn't be easy for a web-based newsreading service to > do that; they'd basically have to make you log in and keep your .newsrc- > equivalent on their server. that, or give you a giant cookie, probably > big enough that the browser would throw it away) Absolutely, you log in to mydejanews, and it keeps track of what groups you are subscribed to, what messages you have read, and gives you a personal email account (I am using it to send this message). I used to use a Unix based newsreader to access news, but I find the current thread-based access in DN to be greatly superior to anything else I have seen. So if you are even a little bit unhappy with your news access, give DN a try (the price is right, $0, as seems to be the custom for internet stuff :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-07 0:00 ` dennison 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gur7s$75n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >I used to use a Unix based newsreader to access news, but I find the >current thread-based access in DN to be greatly superior to anything >else I have seen. So if you are even a little bit unhappy with your >news access, give DN a try (the price is right, $0, as seems to be >the custom for internet stuff :-) I use trn, which provides a reasonable display of the thread history. I find DejaNews satisfactory for archive searching, but the performance is often too slow for regular newsreading. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` dennison 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: dennison @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gur7s$75n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > In article <7gt9k8$2pl$1@nef.ens.fr>, > espel@news.ens.fr (Roger Espel Llima) wrote: > > In article <7gt7qu$rlo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > > last time I tried reading a newsgroup on DejaNews, I couldn't find a way > > to make it remember which posts I'd seen, from one time to the next. > > > > (to be fair, it wouldn't be easy for a web-based newsreading service to > > do that; they'd basically have to make you log in and keep your .newsrc- > > equivalent on their server. that, or give you a giant cookie, probably > > big enough that the browser would throw it away) > > Absolutely, you log in to mydejanews, and it keeps track of what groups > you are subscribed to, what messages you have read, and gives you a personal > email account (I am using it to send this message). > > I used to use a Unix based newsreader to access news, but I find the > current thread-based access in DN to be greatly superior to anything > else I have seen. So if you are even a little bit unhappy with your > news access, give DN a try (the price is right, $0, as seems to be > the custom for internet stuff :-) To be fair it still does have some kinks. It seems to randomly switch me from threaded viewing to message-based viewing. Read messages reappear as unread sometimes. It stops updating for hours. The latest trend is to tell me "Access Denied" on messages. But the service interruptions you will get with any news server, and it has a nice set of features that are not all available in one other reader that I have used. (Cancelling messages, surfing to URL's, searching Usenet history back to 1995, etc). The best part (for me) is that it works from sites where the firewall has every protocol other than SMTP and HTTP disabled. -- T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <r2lY2.447$jw4.33999@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > In article <7gqrbf$mun$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > The GPL never specifically addresses the issue we're discussing. It's all > post facto posturing by RMS, as he tries to figure out how to apply the GPL > to situations that didn't exist when it was written. What he feels is a > logical extension of the spirit of the GPL may not in fact be supported by > copyright law. Nor could it! The issue of whether the patch file is or is not a derived work is a matter of copyright law, not something that can be addressed by the GPL. However, it is my opinion that indeed the current copyright law would determine that the patch file was a derived work. I base this opinion on the work I have done as an expert witness in software copyright cases. Of course it would need a court ruling to determine this precisely. I can also tell you that lawyers at one large company definitely agree there is a real problem in distributing patch files ... As always, feel free to try it and see. Note that most situations in which companies have pushed the GPL have resulted in quick agreements to change behavior and have not ended up in court. I am not sure how many companies would be happy to be in court right now in a position which would make them seem to be undermining the principles of free software! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net>]
* [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net> @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Leslie Mikesell wrote: > Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't > need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so > why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging > patches? The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net>]
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Arromdee wrote: > In article <372DCFB9.57F91727@iiinet.dhs.org>, > Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> wrote: > >> Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't > >> need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so > >> why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging > >> patches? > >The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make > >copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence. > Do you believe the same thing for patches to Microsoft Windows? Yes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net>]
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net>, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@tcp.com> wrote: >In article <372E2E00.99917C63@iiinet.dhs.org>, >Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> wrote: >>> >> Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't >>> >> need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so >>> >> why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging >>> >> patches? >>> >The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make >>> >copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence. >>> Do you believe the same thing for patches to Microsoft Windows? >>Yes. > >You mean you think people should be sued for distributing unauthorized patches >to Windows, even if the patch doesn't use any Windows code? There is a rather long tradition of user groups sharing their patches to commercial works. It is usually encouraged rather than contested as long as the participants all have their own copies of the base code. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7goi9s$qvq$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > There is a rather long tradition of user groups sharing their patches > to commercial works. It is usually encouraged rather than contested > as long as the participants all have their own copies of the base > code. This is potentially very misleading, I am aware of a major lawsuit where the EXACT point of contention is that such sharing of patches was a violation of the license agreement. You cannot generalize in this manner. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gprnj$pau$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7goi9s$qvq$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, > les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > >> There is a rather long tradition of user groups sharing their patches >> to commercial works. It is usually encouraged rather than contested >> as long as the participants all have their own copies of the base >> code. > >This is potentially very misleading, I am aware of a major lawsuit >where the EXACT point of contention is that such sharing of patches >was a violation of the license agreement. You cannot generalize >in this manner. There are lawsuits over nearly everything. Is there any court decision that states that something you write is covered by someone else's copyright when it contains none of the other work? Note that this has nothing to do with license agreements since you can obtain GPL'd works without agreeing to the license, unless you are redistributing the GPL'd code this is strictly a copyright issue. It might not be in a different situation where you had agreed to a license that prohibited reverse engineering or modifications. How about an approach where you hire the person who did the modification to make the same modification for you as your agent for some token sum? Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gr768$kqe$1@Jupiter.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > There are lawsuits over nearly everything. Is there any court > decision that states that something you write is covered by > someone else's copyright when it contains none of the other > work? If by "contains none of the other work" you mean contains no literal characters copied from the other work, then of course the answer is yes. The process for evaluation of copyright violation involves looking for protected elements at successive levels of abstraction. It is pretty clear to me that this abstraction process in the case of a patch file will necessarily involve looking at the combined work. Note that software copright is definitely NOT simply a matter of comparing two texts, it is a far more complicated process, as anyone who has been involved in such cases is aware. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7grvur$li2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >> There are lawsuits over nearly everything. Is there any court >> decision that states that something you write is covered by >> someone else's copyright when it contains none of the other >> work? > >If by "contains none of the other work" you mean contains no literal >characters copied from the other work, then of course the answer >is yes. No, it wasn't a trick question. Obviously you could encode the original work in some other representation and it would still be covered. However, the concept of a 'diff' is exactly the opposite. It conveys, by definition, the parts that were not in the original. >The process for evaluation of copyright violation involves looking >for protected elements at successive levels of abstraction. It is >pretty clear to me that this abstraction process in the case of >a patch file will necessarily involve looking at the combined work. If the only part copied is the patch, how can anything else be involved? A normal patch file does contain bits of the surrounding context; even in the ed form there will be original content as parts of some lines. I'd think this would be 'fair use' particularly since the recipient must already have his own copy of the original to use the patch. However that objection could be eliminated by a different patch format that used character offsets with the lines to anchor the changes instead of containing any of the original content. >Note that software copright is definitely NOT simply a matter of >comparing two texts, it is a far more complicated process, as anyone >who has been involved in such cases is aware. Like they say, if the two lawyers can't agree, how are the jurors supposed to... Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h2aca$2mqq$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > Like they say, if the two lawyers can't agree, how are the jurors > supposed to... I really strongly suggest that you look up the case law here to better understand the abstract-filter-compare-iterate methodology, which is fundamental for judging software copyright issues. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h2i00$adl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >> Like they say, if the two lawyers can't agree, how are the jurors >> supposed to... > >I really strongly suggest that you look up the case law here >to better understand the abstract-filter-compare-iterate >methodology, which is fundamental for judging software copyright >issues. Can you suggest a starting point where (a) the parties had not agreed to restrictive licensing terms and (b) the material copied contained only changes to the covered work and none of the original? Any other type of case would not have much relevance. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h5rf0$i3t$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > Can you suggest a starting point where (a) the parties had not > agreed to restrictive licensing terms and (b) the material > copied > contained only changes to the covered work and none of the > original? Any other type of case would not have much > relevance. I disagree, if one followed the filter-compare-abstract cycle with a patch, it is pretty clear that the very first level of abstraction (going from the specific text to the abstracted meaning) would immediately involve the original work. I don't see any way to follow the required FCA methodology that would avoid this. If you can see how the FCA approach would apply in some other manner to a patch file, please elucidiate! Certainly if I was an expert in such a case, and I was asked to abstract a patch file, I would have to see the original file that was being patched, I can't see any other way to proceed. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h83tf$150$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7h5rf0$i3t$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, > les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: >> Can you suggest a starting point where (a) the parties had not >> agreed to restrictive licensing terms and (b) the material >> copied >> contained only changes to the covered work and none of the >> original? Any other type of case would not have much >> relevance. > >I disagree, if one followed the filter-compare-abstract cycle >with a patch, it is pretty clear that the very first level >of abstraction (going from the specific text to the abstracted >meaning) would immediately involve the original work. I don't >see any way to follow the required FCA methodology that would >avoid this. Given that the recipient of the patch already has his own copy of the original material obtained by other means, I'm not quite sure why this would be relevant. The abstract meaning is all different from the original in any case. The way you represent 'copy the original' in a patch file is to omit any mention of it. >If you can see how the FCA approach would apply in some other >manner to a patch file, please elucidiate! Certainly if I was >an expert in such a case, and I was asked to abstract a patch >file, I would have to see the original file that was being >patched, I can't see any other way to proceed. I think of a patch as a mechanical abstraction of someone retyping a set of changes, equivalent to the author of the changes dictating the keystrokes to you to reproduce his modifications. Yes there is some relationship to the original work, but at the patch/modification level that relationship is just an interface to anchor the position of the changes. Even where patches contain substantial portions of the original work, the function of those parts is still just mechanical, as a positioning aid, not as content. The part being conveyed is by definition, differences. Is the orginal modification legal? Would it be legal for the author of the modification to come over and retype it for you? How about dictating the edit commands to you over the phone as you modify your own copy? This is exactly the function the patch file performs. I don't see how one way of performing these changes can be treated any differently than the others - they are really all the same. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h8aqf$4nm$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > Is the orginal modification legal? Would it be legal for the > author of the modification to come over and retype it for you? > How about dictating the edit commands to you over the phone as > you modify your own copy? This is exactly the function the > patch file performs. I don't see how one way of performing > these changes can be treated any differently than the others - > they are really all the same. I assume you are speaking as an attorney, or at least an expert in the copyright field, so it would be useful if you would cite some basis for your legal opinions. I continue to think that the abstraction process would immediately indicate that the patch file was a derived work in the normal sense of the meaning of this term. Once again, I do not see how the filter-compare-abstraction cycle could be applied to the patch file without reference to the original. Remember that you have to get all the way to the top in this cycle -- to something like "write a compiler" ... Can you coordinate your viewpoint with the specific court cases involved here (I assume you are familiar with them ...) --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h97qi$t1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7h8aqf$4nm$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, > les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: >> Is the orginal modification legal? Would it be legal for the >> author of the modification to come over and retype it for you? >> How about dictating the edit commands to you over the phone as >> you modify your own copy? This is exactly the function the >> patch file performs. I don't see how one way of performing >> these changes can be treated any differently than the others - >> they are really all the same. > >I assume you are speaking as an attorney, or at least an expert >in the copyright field, so it would be useful if you would cite >some basis for your legal opinions. Of course not - this is usenet. Anything goes here. But I do have a pretty good understanding of what a patch actually does. >I continue to think that the abstraction process would >immediately indicate that the patch file was a derived work >in the normal sense of the meaning of this term. How? After applying the patch you would have a derived work. The patch itself is just replaying the keystrokes used to type in the modifications. >Once again, >I do not see how the filter-compare-abstraction cycle could >be applied to the patch file without reference to the original. >Remember that you have to get all the way to the top in this >cycle -- to something like "write a compiler" ... Sure, but a patch that represents the original best is an empty file. How can an empty file be illegal to copy? The non-empty portion of a patch file does not represent the original content. >Can you coordinate your viewpoint with the specific court cases >involved here (I assume you are familiar with them ...) No, I don't think there has been anything similar. The GPL is a rather strange beast and when you combine that with the fact that people are allowed to get their own copies without first agreeing to a license you have a unique situation. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7ha31n$htn$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > Of course not - this is usenet. Anything goes here. I am not quite sure what that means. It is always important to understand what kind of knolwedge and experience goes into usenet posts. The "of course not" here is not appropriate. Yes there are plenty of people posting who do not have the knowledge to post but post anyway, but there are also many experts who do speak as experts (we have had at least one person whom I assumed was an attorney or at least very knowledgable in the law posting here, and up to the above, I had assumed that you had similar expertise). > But I do have a pretty good understanding of what a patch > actually does. I think you may assume that we all know what a patch is (says he trying to keep from making some sarcastic comment :-) Seriously, of COURSE we all know what a patch is, but that has little to do with the discussion at hand, which is not about patches but about software copyright. The issue is knowing how software copyright works in terms of case law. The case law here is not inaccessible, in fact it makes quite interesting technical reading. You can't figure out what the law is by thinking about what it *should* be according to your common sense view, you have to look at what the statutes actually say, and in this particular case, understand the abstraction process, which is the key here, and which I think you are not understanding as best I can read your posts. Once again you do NOT simply copyright text when it comes to software, you copyright protectable elements of the design at all levels of abstraction. Could you copyright an empty file. I would say that you can certainly see circumstances in which an empty file could be copyrighted. Suppose a file represented some particular option in a standard algorithm. You discovered a new more efficient form in which this option was not needed. You program the result, and the file for the option is now null since the option is not needed. I would guess that this would be a protectable element. But you would have to look at the exact circumstances to actually make a judgment. Software copyright is not a simple issue, as many recent court cases have shown. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h5rf0$i3t$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, > >> Like they say, if the two lawyers can't agree, how are > >> the jurors supposed to... By the way, I don't know who "they" is here, but this does not make much sense. The two lawyers in a trial will ALWAYS disagree, they are basically required to do so, but juries can still often reach a unanimous verdict :-) --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-05-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h840p$15i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7h5rf0$i3t$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, >> >> Like they say, if the two lawyers can't agree, how are >> >> the jurors supposed to... > >By the way, I don't know who "they" is here, but this does not >make much sense. The two lawyers in a trial will ALWAYS >disagree, they are basically required to do so, but juries can >still often reach a unanimous verdict :-) It was an extract from a joke that I assumed everyone had heard. Oh, well. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: James Youngman @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) arromdee@www.inetnow.net (Ken Arromdee) writes: > In article <372DCFB9.57F91727@iiinet.dhs.org>, > Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> wrote: > >> Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't > >> need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so > >> why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging > >> patches? > >The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make > >copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence. > > Do you believe the same thing for patches to Microsoft Windows? The license which Mr Rodd is referring to is the license which allows you legally to distribute derived works. Unless you agree to the GPL, you are not allowed to distribute derived works. In the case of Windows, the license is an end-user license, not a license to distribute derived works. While the GPL seeks to provide rights, the Windows EULA seeks to remove them. The two situations are not comparable. While the Windows EULA says "by using this software....", the GPL says "By copying this software...", which is quite different. You are allowed to *use* but not *copy* GPLed software without taking on even a single one of the obligations mentioned in the GPL. -- ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <x6yaj4k3y2.fsf@no-such-thing-as-a.free-lunch.demon.co.uk>, James Youngman <james@no-such-thing-as-a.free-lunch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > You are > allowed to *use* but not *copy* GPLed software without taking on even > a single one of the obligations mentioned in the GPL. > The GPL *never* obliges anyone to do anything. It merely sets forth a set of conditions under which you have a license to copy a copyrighted work. You meet these conditions, and you may make and distribute copies, but the GPL never obliges you to make or distribute copies. It also does not forbid anything. For example, suppose you want to include a GPL'ed program in your proprietary licensed work. Well you need the copyright holder's permission to do it. You have the GPL, but that does not license this particular usage. It doesn't forbid it, it just does not permit it, there is a big difference. It is the copyright that forbids the use you have in mind unless you get an appropriate license. There is of course legally nothing to stop you asking for permission, and nothing to stop the copyright holder from granting it. Suppose you wanted to put together a compiler using XYZ's proprietary front end and the gcc backend. Well to distribute this derived work, you need the permission of the Free Software Foundation. Very probably they will refuse, as is their right as the copyright holder. But they could give you special permission, and then you could distribute your hybrid program as a proprietary program without violating the GPL, it is just that you would not be relying on the GPL for your right to distribute. In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY this split model. One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff), but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate situation :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-03 0:00 ` [O/T 4 cla] " Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: James Youngman @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Joshua E. Rodd" <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> writes: > Leslie Mikesell wrote: > > Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't > > need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so > > why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging > > patches? > > The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make > copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence. What about "diff -e"? -- ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <x6zp3kk444.fsf@no-such-thing-as-a.free-lunch.demon.co.uk>, James Youngman <james@no-such-thing-as-a.free-lunch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > What about "diff -e"? What possible difference does that make. Remember that software copyright is NOT based on literal text identity. You can have two pieces with literal text identity that are not infringing, and two pieces with no literal text identity which are infringing. Either a patch is a derived work or it is not, the details of how the patch is transmitted cannot matter. Given that the patch is completely useless without the original work, and that in fact the patch is operationally equivalent to the modified work if you have the original, then it is hard for me to imagine that a court would rule that it was not a derived work. Note we are talking copyright here and not patents, the distinction if of course crucial in this case. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 preceding siblings ...) [not found] ` <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net> @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > Suppose two companies want to work together on a super > secret GCC implementation for a super secret chip (I will > leave the imaginative reader to fill in appropriate > details). > > They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since > these would have to be distributed under the GPL *without* > any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure > agreements). Wouldn't this reasoning apply within a *single* company, too? Because the single company developing the super-secret chip presumably has employees, and very well might want to both (1) let them see the derived work, and (2) forbid them from telling secrets. In other words, counting both the company and its employees, there are always going to be two or more legal entities involved. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wcc7lqm41oj.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: > Wouldn't this reasoning apply within a *single* company, too? Because > the single company developing the super-secret chip presumably has > employees, and very well might want to both (1) let them see the derived > work, and (2) forbid them from telling secrets. In other words, > counting both the company and its employees, there are always going to > be two or more legal entities involved. No, the company employees in this situation are part of the single entity. This is the same principle that allows a company to sign an NDA that is binding on all its employees without them having to sign specifically. Giving a copy of GPL'ed software to one of your employees is not distribution within the meaning of the GPL. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > No, the company employees in this situation are part of the single > entity. This is the same principle that allows a company to sign an > NDA that is binding on all its employees without them having to sign > specifically. Giving a copy of GPL'ed software to one of your > employees is not distribution within the meaning of the GPL. Yes, it is. You couldn't give an employee a copy of Winodws 95 to install on their PC unless you had paid for a licence because that would infringe the copyright. Likewise, you may only redistribute GPL'd works if you do not place any restrictions upon that the recipient of the works can do with those works. If you restrict your employee from posting copies of the code you gave him or her to some random FTP site, you're violating the licence, and have no right to redistribute the GPL'd works with your changes to your employee at all. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1999-05-18 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <37336A2E.774E0A80@iiinet.dhs.org>, "Joshua E. Rodd" <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> wrote: > > Yes, it is. You couldn't give an employee a copy of Winodws 95 > to install on their PC unless you had paid for a licence because > that would infringe the copyright. > > Likewise, you may only redistribute GPL'd works if you do not > place any restrictions upon that the recipient of the works can > do with those works. If you restrict your employee from posting > copies of the code you gave him or her to some random FTP site, > you're violating the licence, and have no right to redistribute > the GPL'd works with your changes to your employee at all. Nope, this is wrong! It has been much discussed before, so consult the archives for details. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr @ 1999-05-18 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > Yes, it is. You couldn't give an employee a copy of Winodws 95 > > to install on their PC unless you had paid for a licence because > > that would infringe the copyright. > > Likewise, you may only redistribute GPL'd works if you do not > > place any restrictions upon that the recipient of the works can > > do with those works. If you restrict your employee from posting > > copies of the code you gave him or her to some random FTP site, > > you're violating the licence, and have no right to redistribute > > the GPL'd works with your changes to your employee at all. > Nope, this is wrong! It has been much discussed before, so consult > the archives for details. Can you elaborate? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g5cb2$bjn$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, Paul Hughett <hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu> wrote: >Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote: >: In article <7g4jme$5sq$3@netnews.upenn.edu>, >: Paul Hughett <hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu> wrote: >: >Paragraph 7 of the GPL (version 2) grants C the right to >: >use/copy/modify/etc the software, even if B made and distributed the >: >copy in violation of the GPL. C arguably has the same rights >: >with respect to B's modifications of the code, but I would want to do >: >some more study and thinking before I would be really sure of it. > >: I don't see that in paragraph 7. It describes the situation where other >: considerations (such as patent infringement) contradict the GPL, and says >: that the consequence of this is that you can't distribute the program at >: all. > >One of us must have a garbled copy or got the wrong section by accident. >The paragraph that I am referring to reads as follows: > >7. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the >Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the >original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to >these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions >on the recipient's exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not >responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. In my copy (the version that accompanies GNU Emacs 19.34, labeled GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991) that's paragraph 6. My paragraphs are: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING >Okay, not that we are both reading from the same text, do you still >disagree with my interpretation? I think I agree. >Also note that B does not have the right to distribute the software--even >his own modifications--under any license other than the GPL. That's >why they call the GPL a virus. You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional freedoms. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > >You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- >they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional >freedoms. > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lynn Winebarger wrote: > In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > >You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- > >they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional > >freedoms. > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? The MIT/X11 licence gives the ultimate freedom: the freedom to do as you ought, and even as you not ought--you are granted the freedom to take other's freedom away. [wondering if this is relevant to comp.long.ada--please tell me if it's annoying folks] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3727B3E3.28755434@noah.dhs.org>, "Joshua E. Rodd" <jerodd@noah.dhs.org> wrote: > The MIT/X11 licence gives the ultimate freedom: the > freedom to do as you ought, and even as you not > ought--you are granted the > freedom to take other's freedom away. Of course putting something in the public domain has the same effect. Actually people are always a bit surprised that when you put something in the PD, it is perfectly OK for someone to take it, make a minor change, copyright the result, and sell it as a proprietary program. They expect that something in the public domain should belong to the public, i.e. that the public should have a sort of virtual copyright on PD stuff. But that's not the way things work, if something is in the PD there is no copyright. Indeed one way to characterize the intent of the GPL is to achieve what many people *think* PD is about. With the GPL, in a sense, the public does have a copyright interest, since no one can make deriviative works that they alone own, and the public is guaranteed full access to the original work, and to any deriviative works that are distributed. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: >... Actually people are always a bit surprised > that when you put something in the PD, it is perfectly > OK for someone to take it, make a minor change, copyright > the result, and sell it as a proprietary program. Having done so, does this restrict anyone's right to use the original work as they see fit? Or is the person who copyrighted the result merely copyrighting the "derived work"? Or merely the changes? - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wccbtg7o3e2.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: >Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > >>... Actually people are always a bit surprised >> that when you put something in the PD, it is perfectly >> OK for someone to take it, make a minor change, copyright >> the result, and sell it as a proprietary program. > >Having done so, does this restrict anyone's right to use the original >work as they see fit? Or is the person who copyrighted the result >merely copyrighting the "derived work"? Or merely the changes? I believe they're copyrighting the derived work. Of course, if they find a copy of the original, they're free to do with t as they wish, so the copyright notice only protects the changes strongly. It protects the rest of the work only insofar as the recipient doesn't look around for alternatives. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >> >>You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- >>they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional >>freedoms. >> > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? One example: the freedom to distribute the binary version without the source. The distributor's freedom of action is restricted to ensure the recipient's freedom to see the source. Best, Sam -- Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Paul Hughett ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >> >>You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- >>they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional >>freedoms. >> > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? Please ignore my other reply, if you see it, it was a late-in-the-day mental bobble. For example, a license could require you make any changes available via anonymous FTP. It could require you to send the copyright owner a copy of the changes so he can distribute them. Best, Sam Mize -- Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g80tn$pbt@news1.newsguy.com>, Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net> wrote: > For example, a license could require you make any changes > available via anonymous FTP. It could require you to > send the copyright owner a copy of the changes so he can > distribute them. These are additional restrictions, and are clearly incompatible with the GPL, which does not allow additional restrictions to be added. Indeed the second, the requirement to send the copyright owner a copy, is quite an unacceptable requirement, which would make such a license fail to qualify as free software. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson 1999-04-30 0:00 ` spblunt 5 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lynn Winebarger (owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote: : In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, : Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: : > : >You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- : >they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional : >freedoms. : > : Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? The freedom to use the code in a proprietary product for which the source is not revealed. The BSD and MIT X licenses provide this freedom and are preferred by some developers for that reason. There is a periodic flamewar in this group as to which license is better or more moral. Paul Hughett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-30 0:00 ` spblunt 5 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Fraser Wilson @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) paene lacrimavi postquam Lynn Winebarger scripsit: >In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, >Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >>You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- >>they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional >>freedoms. > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? Ada libraries are commonly distributed with this additional freedom: -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- -- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- -- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- -- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not -- -- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be -- -- covered by the GNU Public License. -- Personally, I'm still wavering between free software purist and pragmatist, so I have no idea whether I like it or not. Fraser. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Fraser Wilson wrote: >Ada libraries are commonly distributed with this additional freedom: > >-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- >-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- >-- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- >-- covered by the GNU General Public License. That seems silly. Why not just distribute them under the LGPL, which is basically the GPL with the above exception built in? -- Ed Avis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3728AAFA.FAD4A827@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: >Fraser Wilson wrote: > >>Ada libraries are commonly distributed with this additional freedom: >> >>-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- >>-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- >>-- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- >>-- covered by the GNU General Public License. > >That seems silly. Why not just distribute them under the LGPL, which >is basically the GPL with the above exception built in? The LGPL also has additional requirements. You have to distribute the unlinked object files and the source to the library, so that the recipient can modify the library and relink. I believe there are some standard GNU programs that include an exception similar to the above clause. For instance, programs produced using Bison contain a copy of a sizable portion of Bison in the yyparse() function. Bison was originally distributed under the normal GPL, which meant that anything produced by it was a derived work, and had to be distributed under the GPL (or something compatible). An exception like Ada's was added to Bison 1.24. The info file regarding this exception mentions that GCC has always had such an exception (an object file produced by a compiler includes large chunks of code taken verbatim out of tables in the code generator). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3728AAFA.FAD4A827@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: > Fraser Wilson wrote: > That seems silly. Why not just distribute them under the > LGPL, which is basically the GPL with the above exception > built in? > > -- > Ed Avis Ed I assume you are not an Ada folk, and therefore do not see the critical point of the special language for generics, something that is not addressed in the LGPL. In addition, we choose not to use the LGPL quite deliberately, we find it too restrictive to require distribution of objects, with the intention of relinking, and indeed this model of relinking does not really make sense in the Ada compilation model anyway, where the binder must check consistency and recompute an elaboration order for the whole program if anything is changed. So perhaps you would like to reconsider the "silly" here. This language was very carefully crafted to meet specific Ada requirements. The authors (I was one) were completely aware of the LGPL, and carefully examined it. Note incidentally that this language is derived from the language used on the C runtime (which also does not use the LGPL, but does not of course address the issue of Ada generics). Robert Dear P.S. C++ templates raise similar issues ... -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: >Ed I assume you are not an Ada folk, and therefore do not >see the critical point of the special language for >generics, something that is not addressed in the LGPL. No, I've never used Ada. I have used C++ templates though. Could you explain what the problem is, or is it too complex for the uninitiated? >So perhaps you would like to reconsider the "silly" here. Yes, I have already. I said it 'seems silly', which it did. It doesn't seem silly now I know there are good reasons. -- Ed Avis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Avis wrote: > > Fraser Wilson wrote: > > >Ada libraries are commonly distributed with this additional freedom: > > > >-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- > >-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- > >-- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- > >-- covered by the GNU General Public License. > > That seems silly. Why not just distribute them under the LGPL, which > is basically the GPL with the above exception built in? Because with a template based library, it can be virtually impossible to sepearte the library and program in the way that the LGPL requires. The only way to permit relinking would be to include source files for the program, something not acceptable for proprietary programs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Starner wrote: [why not distribute libraries under the GPL?] >Because with a template based library, it can be virtually impossible to >sepearte the library and program in the way that the LGPL requires. The >only way to permit relinking would be to include source files for the >program, something not acceptable for proprietary programs. I don't understand what you mean. Surely the library can be stored in a separate shared object or DLL, and loaded just before the program starts running, which would be a strict separation of library code from program code. -- Ed Avis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Avis wrote: > > David Starner wrote: > > [why not distribute libraries under the GPL?] > > >Because with a template based library, it can be virtually impossible to > >sepearte the library and program in the way that the LGPL requires. The > >only way to permit relinking would be to include source files for the > >program, something not acceptable for proprietary programs. > > I don't understand what you mean. Surely the library can be stored in > a separate shared object or DLL, and loaded just before the program > starts running, which would be a strict separation of library code > from program code. In C terms, it would be similar to a "library" that was full of macros - for example: #define sqrt(a) ({int i; i = a/2; do {a = i/a;} \ while (a*a - i > .1); i}) You could write most of the C library that way. Now, that would embed a significant amount of code into the application in a way that dynamic linking wouldn't help. This is effectively what C++ templates and Ada generics do, but at a higher level. If you used LGPL, you would have to ship source code - no other way to allow someone to change the macros. With the GNAT-licensed code, you don't have to. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Starner wrote: >In C terms, it would be similar to a "library" that was full of macros - >for example: > >#define sqrt(a) ({int i; i = a/2; do {a = i/a;} \ > while (a*a - i > .1); i}) > >You could write most of the C library that way. Now, that would >embed a significant amount of code into the application in a way >that dynamic linking wouldn't help. This is effectively what >C++ templates and Ada generics do, but at a higher level. Surely not! I'm sure that templates are implemented in a slightly more sensible way than by cutting and pasting object code - or is this not what you meant?. Can't you write a template class in C++, and put it in a dynamically linked library? I know that MFC, for example, includes template classes and yet is in a DLL. -- Ed Avis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3729D0F6.3DF2CCED@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: >Surely not! I'm sure that templates are implemented in a slightly >more sensible way than by cutting and pasting object code - or is this >not what you meant?. Can't you write a template class in C++, and put >it in a dynamically linked library? I know that MFC, for example, >includes template classes and yet is in a DLL. Template definitions are in header files, not libraries. They often work at the source level, and are more like an elaborate macro facility (they were actually added to the language to replace some common macro idioms). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis [not found] ` <R5qW2.242$jw4.22063@burlma1-snr2> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Margolin wrote: >Template definitions are in header files, not libraries. They often work >at the source level, and are more like an elaborate macro facility (they >were actually added to the language to replace some common macro idioms). I didn't know that any work compiled using header files counts as a derivative work of those header files. People write programs using (say) Microsoft's header files for MFC, and yet they don't have to say 'portions Copyright Microsoft' for the finished work. -- Ed Avis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <R5qW2.242$jw4.22063@burlma1-snr2>]
[parent not found: <372ADEED.D907754@doc.ic.ac.uk>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <372ADEED.D907754@doc.ic.ac.uk> @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Alan Braggins 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Avis wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote: > > >When you #include a file, > >the compiler treats it as if the contents of that file were actually > >inserted in that place, and the resulting compiled file contains the > >compiled versions of those statements, which are clearly derivative works > >of those bits of source code. > > But most of the time, header files don't actually include code. FD_SET certainly includes code. > They > include function prototypes, which aren't strictly necessary (K&C > managed for years without them), declarations of functions (which are > just there to reassure the compiler that 'printf()' isn't a typo), and > constant values such as #define SIGINT 2, which being just a few > simple numbers, probably aren't copyrightable by themselves. Huh? One could as well argue that an object file is `just a bunch of unsigned numbers'. It's still copyrighted. > Prototypes and declarations don't end up in the final object code - > they're just 'scaffolding' for the compiler. They very well could end up in the final code--think about Java. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Joshua E. Rodd wrote: >>But most of the time, header files don't actually include code. > >FD_SET certainly includes code. Okay. I did say, 'most of the time'. For the sake of argument, let's just discuss 'pure' header files that don't contain actual code, (or maybe the code is so trivial and short as to be not copyrightable). >>They >>include function prototypes, which aren't strictly necessary (K&C >>managed for years without them), declarations of functions (which are >>just there to reassure the compiler that 'printf()' isn't a typo), and >>constant values such as #define SIGINT 2, which being just a few >>simple numbers, probably aren't copyrightable by themselves. > >Huh? One could as well argue that an object file is `just a bunch >of unsigned numbers'. It's still copyrighted. An object file is several thousand rather long integers. I meant that something like: #define BUFFER_SIZE 1000 #define MAX_THINGIES 6 probably isn't copyrightable, especially once you strip away the names and are just left with the pair of integers '1000, 6'. You could make an enormous header file with #define FIRST_INSTRUCTION 0x28a45e92, #define SECOND_INSTRUCTION 0xf3485dea, and so on, which would be big enough to copyright. Of course, IANAL. >>Prototypes and declarations don't end up in the final object code - >>they're just 'scaffolding' for the compiler. > >They very well could end up in the final code--think about Java. Java doesn't have separate prototypes or header files. AFAIK the information on a method's name, what arguments it takes, and so on, are stored together with the bytecode for that method - but then, they came from the same source file anyway. It's not a case of my object code getting 'polluted' with copyrighted material from somebody else's header files. -- Ed Avis Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372F2C65.4B7663C5@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: >An object file is several thousand rather long integers. I meant that >something like: > >#define BUFFER_SIZE 1000 >#define MAX_THINGIES 6 > >probably isn't copyrightable, especially once you strip away the names >and are just left with the pair of integers '1000, 6'. You could make >an enormous header file with #define FIRST_INSTRUCTION 0x28a45e92, >#define SECOND_INSTRUCTION 0xf3485dea, and so on, which would be big >enough to copyright. Of course, IANAL. It certainly is copyrightable. The choice of names is a significant part of programming. A header file that says: #define ASDFASDF 1000 #define LKJLKJLK 6 is quite different from the above file. IANAL, so I don't know how much punishment could be exacted for infringing the copyright of such a small amount of code, but I think it's *still* copyright infringement, just as taking a 50-cent candy bar is still theft. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Peter Seebach 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Margolin wrote: >>I meant that something like: >> >>#define BUFFER_SIZE 1000 >>#define MAX_THINGIES 6 >> >>probably isn't copyrightable, especially once you strip away the names >>and are just left with the pair of integers '1000, 6'. >It certainly is copyrightable. The choice of names is a significant part >of programming. A header file that says: > >#define ASDFASDF 1000 >#define LKJLKJLK 6 > >is quite different from the above file. My point was, the only part of the header file which gets included in the final executable (or, indeed, in the .S file) is the two numbers 1000 and 6. So my header file and yours would give identical object code. I don't see how the number six can be copyrighted, except perhaps in relation to the Children's Television Workshop. >IANAL, so I don't know how much punishment could be exacted for infringing >the copyright of such a small amount of code, but I think it's *still* >copyright infringement, just as taking a 50-cent candy bar is still theft. I thought that very small snippets of code were not copyrighted. -- Ed Avis Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Peter Seebach 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372F36AB.55833EA6@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: >Barry Margolin wrote: > >>>I meant that something like: >>> >>>#define BUFFER_SIZE 1000 >>>#define MAX_THINGIES 6 >>> >>>probably isn't copyrightable, especially once you strip away the names >>>and are just left with the pair of integers '1000, 6'. > >>It certainly is copyrightable. The choice of names is a significant part >>of programming. A header file that says: >> >>#define ASDFASDF 1000 >>#define LKJLKJLK 6 >> >>is quite different from the above file. > >My point was, the only part of the header file which gets included in >the final executable (or, indeed, in the .S file) is the two numbers >1000 and 6. So my header file and yours would give identical object >code. I don't see how the number six can be copyrighted, except >perhaps in relation to the Children's Television Workshop. Suppose you have a program that contains: #include <somefile.h> ... printf ("%d, %d\n", BUFFER_SIZE, MAX_THINGIES); If you compile this file, you'll get a different object file depending on whether somefile.h contains: #define BUFFER_SIZE 1000 #define MAX_THINGIES 6 or #define BUFFER_SIZE 6 #define MAX_THINGIES 1000 Thus, the object file is derived from the header file. >I thought that very small snippets of code were not copyrighted. They are, but in some cases copying small snippets out of a larger work might be fair use, and hence not infringing. There are a number of criteria that must be satisfied for a copy to be fair use, and size in proportion to the entire work is just one of them. Perhaps a court might decide that the way that header files are typically used constitutes fair use. AFAIK, it's never been tested. Years ago I worked for a company that produced an operating system and compilers. It was quite common for programmers at the time to produce compiler listings that included all the header files inserted. IIRC, we took the copyright notices *out* of our header files so that these listing files wouldn't appear to be copyrighted by the vendor. Our PL/I compiler didn't support macros, so the only stuff in the header files were function prototypes and structure declarations, and we weren't concerned about them being copied. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: dewarr @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <OYGX2.350$jw4.27311@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > They are, but in some cases copying small snippets out of a larger work > might be fair use, and hence not infringing. I know of no court cases that would back up this claim, can you give a reference. It would definitely be of interest to know if any court has established this principle clearly. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Peter Seebach 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Peter Seebach @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372F36AB.55833EA6@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: >My point was, the only part of the header file which gets included in >the final executable (or, indeed, in the .S file) is the two numbers >1000 and 6. Hmm. Interesting point... Not sure it's always true; some compilers embed lots of information for debuggers. >I thought that very small snippets of code were not copyrighted. If this were true, you could probably "fair-use" a large piece of code to death. -s -- Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/ Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <372ADEED.D907754@doc.ic.ac.uk> 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Alan Braggins 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Alan Braggins @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> writes: > >When you #include a file, > >the compiler treats it as if the contents of that file were actually > >inserted in that place, and the resulting compiled file contains the > >compiled versions of those statements, which are clearly derivative works > >of those bits of source code. > > But most of the time, header files don't actually include code. They do if they include template definitions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Andy Isaacson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Phil Hunt @ 1999-05-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3729D0F6.3DF2CCED@doc.ic.ac.uk> epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk "Ed Avis" writes: > David Starner wrote: > >In C terms, it would be similar to a "library" that was full of macros - > >for example: > > > >#define sqrt(a) ({int i; i = a/2; do {a = i/a;} \ > > while (a*a - i > .1); i}) > > > >You could write most of the C library that way. Now, that would > >embed a significant amount of code into the application in a way > >that dynamic linking wouldn't help. This is effectively what > >C++ templates and Ada generics do, but at a higher level. Is the ({ ... }) construct standard C and/or C++ these days? IIRC gcc supports it. > Surely not! I'm sure that templates are implemented in a slightly > more sensible way than by cutting and pasting object code - or is this > not what you meant?. Effectively this is what templates do. The difference is that templates allow more type checking than macro definitions. (Bjarne Stroustrup is on record as saying that he wishes he'd initially implemented templates as an extension to #define macros). > Can't you write a template class in C++, and put > it in a dynamically linked library? I would be surprised if this is the case. However instantiations of templates can be put in a DLL or .so. > I know that MFC, for example, > includes template classes and yet is in a DLL. -- Phil Hunt....philh@vision25.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Phil Hunt @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Andy Isaacson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Phil Hunt wrote: >>Can't you write a template class in C++, and put >>it in a dynamically linked library? > >I would be surprised if this is the case. However instantiations of >templates can be put in a DLL or .so. What do you mean by 'instantiations of templates'? Surely if I write a class like this (pseudocode, I don't know Ada and my C++ is rusty): class List let T be any class method add(T) method get_first_item : returns T method count_items : returns Int then there will only one copy of the executable code in the object file. If the program instantiates a List of Int, then the code for List is called and passed pointers (or references) to Ints. If the program wants a List of Char, then the same object code can be used, being passed pointers to Chars. Or have I got it horribly wrong? -- Ed Avis Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Phil Hunt @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372C1824.1417502F@doc.ic.ac.uk> epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk "Ed Avis" writes: > Phil Hunt wrote: > >>Can't you write a template class in C++, and put > >>it in a dynamically linked library? > > > >I would be surprised if this is the case. However instantiations of > >templates can be put in a DLL or .so. > > What do you mean by 'instantiations of templates'? > > Surely if I write a class like this (pseudocode, I don't know Ada and > my C++ is rusty): > > class List > let T be any class > method add(T) > method get_first_item : returns T > method count_items : returns Int > > then there will only one copy of the executable code in the object > file. If the program instantiates a List of Int, then the code for > List is called and passed pointers (or references) to Ints. If the > program wants a List of Char, then the same object code can be used, > being passed pointers to Chars. > > Or have I got it horribly wrong? I think you've got it horribly wrong (there might be C++ compilers that work like that, but I imagine they are very rare, produce slow code and are horrible to implement). What C++ does is constructs code for the template with T changed to int, compiles it, and produces code for the template with T changed to char, and compiles that as well. -- Phil Hunt....philh@vision25.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Phil Hunt @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-03 0:00 ` dennison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Phil Hunt wrote: >>If the program instantiates a List of Int, then the code for >>List is called and passed pointers (or references) to Ints. If the >>program wants a List of Char, then the same object code can be used, >>being passed pointers to Chars. >I think you've got it horribly wrong (there might be C++ compilers >that work like that, but I imagine they are very rare, produce slow code >and are horrible to implement). > >What C++ does is constructs code for the template with T changed to >int, compiles it, and produces code for the template with T changed >to char, and compiles that as well. I see. That seems a much less efficient way to do things, but what do I know about compiler design? I'm sure that not every language supporting generic types does it this way. For a start, some are interpreted. You've convinced me that a program compiled, and dynamically linked, against a library containing template classes really does contain bits of that library embedded in the program code. I think you could probably work around this, by creating a thin wrapper: class List_wrapper method add(Object o) (or void *) call List.add(o) end method (etc.) and then substitute List_wrapper for List everywhere in your program. The object code for List_wrapper would contain bits of code from List, but the rest of your program would not, and you could link the two together at runtime. You lose the benefit of template type-checking this way, but AFAIK, it's only used at compile time, not runtime (at least in C++), so you could develop without the wrapper, then stick it in for your final release. -- Ed Avis Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: dennison @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372CBCA7.52206CB5@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: > Phil Hunt wrote: > > >What C++ does is constructs code for the template with T changed to > >int, compiles it, and produces code for the template with T changed > >to char, and compiles that as well. > > You've convinced me that a program compiled, and dynamically linked, > against a library containing template classes really does contain bits > of that library embedded in the program code. I think you could > probably work around this, by creating a thin wrapper: Ada has much the same problem with generics as well as the language's run-time system. Even the LGPL does not prevent GPL "infection" of client code in this situation. The way the Gnat compiler got around it was to put an addendum to the GPL in the headers of the source files in question, saying basicly that the meer act of compiling and/or linking against that source file is not sufficient to make the GPL apply to the client. -- T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Phil Hunt @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> writes: > Phil Hunt wrote: > > >>Can't you write a template class in C++, and put > >>it in a dynamically linked library? > > > >I would be surprised if this is the case. However instantiations of > >templates can be put in a DLL or .so. > > What do you mean by 'instantiations of templates'? > > Surely if I write a class like this (pseudocode, I don't know Ada and > my C++ is rusty): > > class List > let T be any class > method add(T) > method get_first_item : returns T > method count_items : returns Int > > then there will only one copy of the executable code in the object > file. If the program instantiates a List of Int, then the code for > List is called and passed pointers (or references) to Ints. If the > program wants a List of Char, then the same object code can be used, > being passed pointers to Chars. > > Or have I got it horribly wrong? > > -- > Ed Avis > Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk In principle, you're right that it could be done this way. However, the majority of compilers seem to create a separate instance for each T, just as a macro processor would have done. Olw-Hj. Kristensen -- E pluribus Unix ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Andy Isaacson 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Andy Isaacson @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <925572182snz@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt wrote: > > >#define sqrt(a) ({int i; i = a/2; do {a = i/a;} \ > > > while (a*a - i > .1); i}) [snip] > Is the ({ ... }) construct standard C and/or C++ these days? IIRC > gcc supports it. No, it's not standard. gcc does support it, however. -andy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Andy Isaacson @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn7ip1tk.207.adisaacs@pirx.resnet.mtu.edu>, adisaacs@mtu.edu (Andy Isaacson) wrote: > No, it's not standard. gcc does support it, however. It is actually more helpful to use the term GNU C here rather than gcc, when you are talking about the language. GNU C is a superset of C containing many useful extensions, including most notably nested functions. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3728C535.4AFA09C2@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: > > I don't understand what you mean. Surely the library can be stored in > a separate shared object or DLL, and loaded just before the program > starts running, which would be a strict separation of library code > from program code. > > -- > Ed Avis First of all, this obviously does not address the problem of C++ templates or Ada 95 generics. If this is not clear, it is perhaps from a lack of familiarity with these features. Second, for Ada, you can't just relink, you have to rebind, and recompute the elaboration order, and obviously objects are not sufficient for this. All the world does not look like C (and the LGPL was obviously designed with C in mind :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Avis wrote: > I don't understand what you mean. Surely the library can be stored in > a separate shared object or DLL, and loaded just before the program > starts running, which would be a strict separation of library code > from program code. <thinks about the related Qt thread> The answer to this is unclear. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-30 0:00 ` David Kastrup 5 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: spblunt @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >> >>You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- >>they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional >>freedoms. >> > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? for example the xfree licence allows you to link with proprietary software, but this licence is still GPL compatable. cya ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-30 0:00 ` spblunt @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> writes: > Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > > In article <JWIV2.146$jw4.15391@burlma1-snr2>, > > Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > >> > >>You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- > >>they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional > >>freedoms. > >> > > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? > > for example the xfree licence allows you to link with proprietary software, > but this licence is still GPL compatable. When distributed as part of a GPLed work, they cannot grant linking to proprietary software. So they cannot give additional freedoms to a GPLed work linked with them. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 6 siblings, 3 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: spblunt @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to give C the source code upon request). B can charge as much as they like for the software, and they are under no obligation to tell C that it can be obtained gratis elsewhere. Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: > Wading rather trepidly into this issue, and with the understanding that I am > not any kind of legal expert (in UK or US law), I have wondered if there is > a potential problem with the GPL and similar licences, which I'll try to > describe. > Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A > (paying nothing for it). Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a > work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) > for a substantial amount of money. > Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is > derived from a GPL work; what can they do? It seems to me that if party C > attempts to sue B, B can argue that C is not the injured party, because it > is not C's licence who's terms were breached. On the other hand, it seems > to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), B can argue that A > (or any other party, for that matter) has not suffered any financial loss, > and so are not entitled to any compensation (except, perhaps, for court > costs and legal fees). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. > Neither party can > really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless > they refuse to > give C the source code upon request). > > B can charge as much as they like for the software, and > they are under no > obligation to tell C that it can be obtained gratis > elsewhere. The question of gratis has nothing to do with this at all, it is a red herring. The GPL is about freedoms the recipient has, it is nothing to do with the cost of the software, so let's drop that confusion right away. B is most DEFINITELY under the obligation to tell C that this software is distributed under the GPL. As long as this is done, there is no problem at all. I understood the problem as posed to suppose that B did NOT tell C that this was GPL'ed and that is of course a clear copyright violation, since B has copied the software under conditions not allowed by the license. The GPL has nothing to say about costs. For example, It is just fine to pick up the GNAT sources put them on a convenient CD ROM, and charge money for the CD. Several companies have done that, including most recently Addison-Wesley, in conjunction with Michael Feldman's new book. As far as we are concerned, this is great! We encourage it and work with the companies that do this. Anything that helps GNAT distribution is a good thing for the Ada community. Now of course if someone tries to sell you a copy of GNAT 3.11p for $100,000, they are trying to rip you off. We hope you know enough to refuse, but it is nothing to do with us in a legal sense -- we will most certainly try to warn the buyer if we hear about it :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Kenneth P. Turvey ` (2 more replies) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 2 siblings, 3 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Tim Smith @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can >really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to >give C the source code upon request). B broke the license by not telling C that the software was GPL'ed. --Tim Smith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Kenneth P. Turvey 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Kenneth P. Turvey @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 26 Apr 1999 13:03:32 -0700, Tim Smith <tzs@halcyon.com> wrote: >In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >>Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can >>really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to >>give C the source code upon request). > >B broke the license by not telling C that the software was GPL'ed. > It should be noted that `telling' C that the software is GPL'ed could be simply including the standard COPYING file on the CD. -- Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@SprocketShop.com> Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Kenneth P. Turvey @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn7i9ohu.q9b.kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com>, kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) wrote: > It should be noted that `telling' C that the software is > GPL'ed could be simply including the standard COPYING > file on the CD. Dubious. You really need a proper copyright statement, so that you are sure you are receiving a license from the copyright holder. Normally this would be done in a much more explicit way. You also need a written offer at least to provide the sources. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Mitch Blevins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g39vc$o8p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <slrn7i9ohu.q9b.kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com>, > kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) wrote: > >> It should be noted that `telling' C that the software is >> GPL'ed could be simply including the standard COPYING >> file on the CD. > >Dubious. You really need a proper copyright statement, so >that you are sure you are receiving a license from the >copyright holder. Normally this would be done in a much >more explicit way. You also need a written offer at least >to provide the sources. The GPL requires interactive programs to display a copyright notice when they start up, but where would such a notice would go in other cases (e.g. GCC, or a library)? Normally it's in the source code, but if the source code isn't supplied that obviously is moot. The COPYING file is usually the location of the copyright and license for the package as a whole. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Mitch Blevins 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Sam Holden 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Mitch Blevins @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: > The GPL requires interactive programs to display a copyright notice when > they start up, ... Is this really true? I can swing a dead cat with a blindfold on (on me, not the cat) and hit at least 50 interactive GPL'd programs that do NOT do this. Curious, -Mitch mblevin@debian.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Mitch Blevins @ 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Sam Holden 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Sam Holden @ 1999-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2 May 1999 12:40:52 GMT, Mitch Blevins <mblevin@debian.org> wrote: >Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >> The GPL requires interactive programs to display a copyright notice when >> they start up, ... > >Is this really true? >I can swing a dead cat with a blindfold on (on me, not the cat) and hit >at least 50 interactive GPL'd programs that do NOT do this. No, it is suggested as part of the process of applying the terms of the GPL to your software. It is not part of the terms and conditions of the GPL. -- Sam The very fact that it's possible to write messy programs in Perl is also what makes it possible to write programs that are cleaner in Perl than they could ever be in a language that attempts to enforce cleanliness. --Larry Wall ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Sam Holden @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn7ioisp.lmv.sholden@pgrad.cs.usyd.edu.au>, Sam Holden <sholden@cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote: >On 2 May 1999 12:40:52 GMT, Mitch Blevins <mblevin@debian.org> wrote: >>Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >>> The GPL requires interactive programs to display a copyright notice when >>> they start up, ... >> >>Is this really true? >>I can swing a dead cat with a blindfold on (on me, not the cat) and hit >>at least 50 interactive GPL'd programs that do NOT do this. > >No, it is suggested as part of the process of applying the terms of the >GPL to your software. > >It is not part of the terms and conditions of the GPL. Clause 2c contains the requirement. However, it only applies to derived works where the original program had such behavior. In other words, you can't take a GPLed program that displays a copyleft/warranty notice when it starts up, modify it so it doesn't do so, and then redistribute this version. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Kenneth P. Turvey @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g2gqk$ffk$1@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net>, tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) wrote: > B broke the license by not telling C that the software > was GPL'ed. Well you can't exactly "break" a license. What B did was to make an unauthorized copy for C, since the distribution to C was not covered by the license. Thus this is a copyright violation (there is really no such thing as a license violation -- the GPL allows you to make certain copies -- any copy outside these allowances is simply a copyright violation). -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Kenneth P. Turvey 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 2 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Phil Hunt @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g2gqk$ffk$1@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net> tzs@halcyon.com "Tim Smith" writes: > In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > >Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can > >really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to > >give C the source code upon request). > > B broke the license by not telling C that the software was GPL'ed. AFAICT it is perfectly legal for B to to tell C this until after C has bought it; after all, that is what Linux vendors do with shrinkwrapped distrutions. -- Phil Hunt....philh@vision25.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Phil Hunt @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes: > In article <7g2gqk$ffk$1@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net> > tzs@halcyon.com "Tim Smith" writes: > > In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > >Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can > > >really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to > > >give C the source code upon request). > > > > B broke the license by not telling C that the software was GPL'ed. > > AFAICT it is perfectly legal for B to to tell C this until after C > has bought it; after all, that is what Linux vendors do with > shrinkwrapped distrutions. Of course, traditional shrink-wrapped licenses have to include a phrase where you may return the unused software if you do not agree with the license. This is not the case with GPLed software, as GPLed software grants you only additional freedoms over the case where you would buy software without an explicit license. That the recipient of the software may at his choice further distribute the software for an arbitrary price to whoever he wants is not in itself to be suing for fraud. It would probably more complicated if the user acquired a 50-computer license for a large price over the 1-computer version, when the offer is not accompanied by appropriately more value, such as proportional support or media. In that case we are slowly getting into areas where, well, at least you would not buy a second time at that outlet. Perhaps some sort of a court case could be made out of it, but I am not quite sure what. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1 sibling, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de > Of course, traditional shrink-wrapped licenses have to > include a phrase where you may return the unused software > if you do not agree with the license. I do not know of any such requirement. I quickly checked and it is not in the Illinois statute as far as I can see, to which shrink-wrapped statute are you referring. It does not appear to be in the federal statute either. > > This is not the case with GPLed software, as GPLed > software grants you only additional freedoms over the > case where you would buy software > without an explicit license. This is quite wrong, the GPL is no different from any other software license, its terms may or may not be acceptable to the purchaser of the license. Indeed in the install shield for NT, we give people the chance to reject the GPL conditions, as seems appropriate. Note that you do not usually buy software, you buy the license, and the GPL is no different from any other license in this respect. If you "buy" GPL'ed software, you have not bought it in the legal sense, you have just bought the license. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g4ncj$vme$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article ><m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de >> Of course, traditional shrink-wrapped licenses have to >> include a phrase where you may return the unused software >> if you do not agree with the license. > >I do not know of any such requirement. I quickly checked >and it is not in the Illinois statute as far as I can see, >to which shrink-wrapped statute are you referring. It does >not appear to be in the federal statute either. I think he's referring to the "ProCD v. Zeidenberg" decision, where a shrink-wrap license was upheld partly because the software was returnable if the purchaser didn't agree to the terms. (The other part was that they ruled Zeidenberg actually infringed on copyrighted material, so the decision is somewhat muddled). >This is quite wrong, the GPL is no different from any other >software license, its terms may or may not be acceptable This statement is false on its face. The GPL only deals with creating derivative works, and redistributing the code. It doesn't deal with any particular copy of the software or usage thereof. It's a license on the copyrights of the software, not the copy of the software. And you don't get the copyrights when you get a copy, i.e. you've not "purchased" anything. >to the purchaser of the license. Indeed in the install >shield for NT, we give people the chance to reject the >GPL conditions, as seems appropriate. Note that you do not >usually buy software, you buy the license, and the GPL is >no different from any other license in this respect. If you >"buy" GPL'ed software, you have not bought it in the legal >sense, you have just bought the license. No, you do buy the software, though IP lawyers and the software companies they work for would have you believe otherwise (that is, unless it was a privately made contract, which just buying something in a store, as a member of the general public, most certainly does _not_ constitute a privately made contract). And yes, when you buy a copy of GPL'ed software, that copy _is_ yours. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Richard E. Hawkins Esq. @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g4ncj$vme$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article ><m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de >> Of course, traditional shrink-wrapped licenses have to >> include a phrase where you may return the unused software >> if you do not agree with the license. >I do not know of any such requirement. I quickly checked >and it is not in the Illinois statute as far as I can see, >to which shrink-wrapped statute are you referring. It does >not appear to be in the federal statute either. You will not find the overwhelming majority of contract law in any statutes; it is heavily common law. As a practical matter, if there is no such condition clear before the shrinkwrap is cracked, the purported license terms would not attach. rick, esq. -- These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote: >philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes: > >> AFAICT it is perfectly legal for B to to tell C this until after C >> has bought it; after all, that is what Linux vendors do with >> shrinkwrapped distrutions. Actually, the whole premise that a software license needs to be on the outside is sort of bogus, and it doesn't really apply to the GPL anyway. Why? Because, unlike most attempts to inflict a license on a consumer, the GPL is not a license on a copy of the software, it's a license on the copyrights themselves. That is, you don't have to agree to a contract on a copy of GPL'ed software, so it's really kind of irrelevant as to whether you're given notice of the GPL or not (as far as accepting a contract goes). Of course, I think that when you purchase a box with a copy of software inside, you've purchased the copy, not a license, anyway. It's not because of the (fallacious) argument that you haven't read the terms or had an opportunity to negotiate, it's because allowing companies to sell "licenses" instead of actual products on the open market (as opposed to an actual privately made contract) amounts to letting companies get rights against the world, which is clearly the sole domain of the federal government. That's all in my non-lawyer opinion, of course. > >It would probably more complicated if the user acquired a 50-computer >license for a large price over the 1-computer version, when the offer >is not accompanied by appropriately more value, such as proportional >support or media. > >In that case we are slowly getting into areas where, well, at least >you would not buy a second time at that outlet. Perhaps some sort of >a court case could be made out of it, but I am not quite sure what. > I was thinking the only real case where something like this would happen would be where, say, a company makes modifications to GPL'ed software that are hardware specific to the setup they're selling, then don't pass along the source to the customers. I think you'd get an especially interesting case here, if the customer demanded the source. One, I think distributing modified versions of GPL'ed software does signal acceptance, and I think a judge would see it that way too. The only reason (that I can think of) that the seller might not have to release the source code is if it is contractually bound to not do so (maybe), and even then I tend to think that the sellers would be ordered to pay damages to the customer for the costs of having to back out of an installation (obviously, once an institution has widely deployed the software/hardware combination, a mere refund of the purchase price could be much less than the cost of switching). Of course, what will be interesting is if/when a case actually occurs. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>, <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can >really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to >give C the source code upon request). The GPL requires you to license the derivative work under the GPL or something compatible with it. If B didn't provide such a license to C, they violated the GPL. Regarding Nick's question about what rights C has, there's been an ongoing debate about this in the "embedded systems and GPL" thread for at least a week. >B can charge as much as they like for the software, and they are under no >obligation to tell C that it can be obtained gratis elsewhere. This is true. In fact, it might *not* be available elsewhere, unless some other customer of B has chosen to make it available. > >Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: >> Wading rather trepidly into this issue, and with the understanding that I am >> not any kind of legal expert (in UK or US law), I have wondered if there is >> a potential problem with the GPL and similar licences, which I'll try to >> describe. > >> Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A >> (paying nothing for it). Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a >> work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) >> for a substantial amount of money. > >> Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is >> derived from a GPL work; what can they do? It seems to me that if party C >> attempts to sue B, B can argue that C is not the injured party, because it >> is not C's licence who's terms were breached. On the other hand, it seems >> to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), B can argue that A >> (or any other party, for that matter) has not suffered any financial loss, >> and so are not entitled to any compensation (except, perhaps, for court >> costs and legal fees). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 6 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com>, "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: > Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the > GPL, from party A (paying nothing for it). Then suppose > party B modifies this work to form work which they then > sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here is the copyright violation. When the software is sold to party C, it is fine to charge anything you like, the GPL has nothing at all to say about software distribution costs (except for requiring reasonable incremental costs for source distribution), but it DOES require that the deriviative software be distributed under the GPL. If C is unaware of this, it presumably means that this requirement of the GPL has been violated, and that hence B has no permission to make a copy for C. > for a substantial amount of money. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No issue here, anyone can sell GPL'ed software to anyone else for any amount of money the buyer is willing to pay! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) Terry J. Westley 1999-04-21 0:00 ` bill @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` dennison 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: dennison @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fl5ac$9sh$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>, "Terry J. Westley" <twestley@buffalo.veridian.com> wrote: > (On a personal note, I've recently decided to release TASH, an > Ada binding to Tcl/Tk [http://tash.calspan.com] under the GPL.) Is that the full unadulterated GPL, or the Gnat modified GPL (GMG?) ? -- T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <DXqW2.244$jw4.22256@burlma1-snr2>]
[parent not found: <7gdln1$vna$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>]
[parent not found: <372ADFBD.4F4C241B@doc.ic.ac.uk>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <372ADFBD.4F4C241B@doc.ic.ac.uk> @ 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger [not found] ` <7gff2f$8o2@www.inetnow.net> [not found] ` <m2zp3pat3q.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Lynn Winebarger @ 1999-05-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372ADFBD.4F4C241B@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: >Lynn Winebarger wrote: > >>Just think how MS (or other proprietary OS'es) could legally limit the >>authorship of programs written to be run under their OS. > >As part of their consent decree settlment with the DoJ a few years >ago, MS are not allowed to limit programs compiled with MS tools to >run only on Windows. Well, not using licence agreements, anyway. > I wasn't referring to their compiler, but rather to the notion that making dynamic calls to a library (and the kernel of an OS can be seen in this way - heck, the Amiga's OS was explicitly written this way) makes the caller a derivative work. Whether or not MS could do it because of particular consent decrees is beside the question. The problem is that with this interpretation of derivative work, a OS company would be legally in the right to restrict the authorship of any program that made calls to the OS. This might trigger antitrust action, but in MS'es case they owned a huge chunk of the OS market - other OS manufacturers wouldn't have this consideration against them. In any case, I don't think it's beneficial to try and extend copyright to cover this. Lynn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7gff2f$8o2@www.inetnow.net>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gff2f$8o2@www.inetnow.net> @ 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-05-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Arromdee wrote: >>As part of their consent decree settlment with the DoJ a few years >>ago, MS are not allowed to limit programs compiled with MS tools to >>run only on Windows. Well, not using licence agreements, anyway. > >They're not? It seems to be a subject that pops up every so often on the >comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine newsgroup. Look for the thread "Why you could >be a software pirate" from the end of 1997. > >The IE 4 license says: >* Installation and Use. Microsoft grants you the right to install and use >copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed >copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed >[e.g., Windows(r) 95; Windows NT(r), Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. I think IE4 is an exception because it is gratis. >Compilers say the same thing, although I don't have any Microsoft compilers in >front of me to check. Compilers? Ouch! Maybe it's because the consent decree only covered 'application programs'. I'm just guessing though. -- Ed Avis Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gff2f$8o2@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Ed Avis @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Arromdee wrote: > The IE 4 license says: > * Installation and Use. Microsoft grants you the right to install and use > copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed > copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed > [e.g., Windows(r) 95; Windows NT(r), Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. That's a bit of stretch--how do you define ``designed''? One could easily blur the line between Bochs[1] and Wine and Microsoft Windows (none of this would be unlicenced provided you didn't redistribute the resulting cornhash of binaries). [1] For the purposes of this discussion, assume Bochs is licenced under the GPL or MIT-style licence. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <m2zp3pat3q.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <m2zp3pat3q.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 0 siblings, 2 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Kastrup wrote: > But the licenses on many of their own software explicitly prohibit you > to try running their software on, say, something like Wine. Ah, but one could still take Intercal Explorer and run it on any platform you wish--emulator in Bochs, Wine (not that it's technically feasible), or Win32s--because you've never agreed to a contract to not run it in Wine. If you signed a contract with Microsoft that you would not run Intercal Explorer under Wine, that would be different. But not signatures are exchanged when retreiving Intercal Explorer 5 beta 1.002. > It would probably not be enforcible, and of course they are taking > technical measures also all the time to make sure the programs break > on anything but Windows, but it *is* there openly in the license. > Perhaps the DoJ has not noticed? Microsoft *probably* wouldn't bring a civil suit against someone running IE in Wine, either. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <372E3C51.47FA3994@iiinet.dhs.org>, "Joshua E. Rodd" <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> writes: > Microsoft *probably* wouldn't bring a civil suit against someone > running IE in Wine, either. Or if they do, there is always a chance they will lose due to having doctored the videotapes :-) Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Ed Avis @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Joshua E. Rodd wrote: >>But the licenses on many of their own software explicitly prohibit you >>to try running their software on, say, something like Wine. >If you signed a contract with Microsoft that you would not run >Intercal Explorer under Wine, that would be different. But not >signatures are exchanged when retreiving Intercal Explorer 5 >beta 1.002. >Microsoft *probably* wouldn't bring a civil suit against someone >running IE in Wine, either. I think you are missing the point here. Firstly, laws such as the DMCA will make 'click-through' licences legally binding. Secondly, even though the agreement may not be legally binding, there is still dishonour involved in breaking it. (Not to say that I don't break licence agreements myself, of course.) Thirdly, most companies and institutions take care to comply with licence agreements on software; whether they do this out of charity towards Microsoft, or because their lawyers have warned them that the EULAs do have some legal force, I don't know. But the point is, just because a few people on gnu.misc.discuss may claim that EULAs are not legally binding, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world will suddenly realize their mistakes and start breaking licences with impunity. For many people, Microsoft's restrictions on where you can run IE _do_ need to be complied with, whether or not they are actually legally valid. -- Ed Avis Advertise here! epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <7gdln1$vna$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu> [not found] ` <372ADFBD.4F4C241B@doc.ic.ac.uk> @ 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Barry Margolin @ 1999-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gdln1$vna$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote: > I doubt the macros in standard header files (at least the ones I've seen) >would get much in the way of copyright protection, because they are >usually very functional in nature. I agree that templates are a >different matter. I think a sufficiently creative peice of macro code >would get copyright protection, but for string copying macros and the >like, I have my doubts. Well, if AT&T could claim copyright on an *empty* shell script (/bin/true), I expect they'd think that a header file also deserves copyright protection. Whether either of these is legally defensible, I can't say (the copyright notice in /bin/true was presumably the result of someone mechanically inserting copyright notices in all the shell scripts installed with the system, rather than someone consciously deciding that this empty script needs protection). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7gdd9e$36l$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>]
[parent not found: <372ADF48.B3C88507@doc.ic.ac.uk>]
* Re: GPL and "free" software [not found] ` <372ADF48.B3C88507@doc.ic.ac.uk> @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 162+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Very briefly, C++ templates and Ada generics provide a way to encode an algorithm only once, if it is the kind of algorithm which can be applied unchanged to several variations of things that are basically 'static' in languages such as C++ and Ada (types, functions/subprograms, etc.). Each such variation is called an 'instance', and setting up an instance ready for use is called 'instantiation'. C++ templates and Ada generic units work in fundamentally the same way; the biggest difference being that, in C++, templates are instantiated automatically. The usual (default) implementation is for each instantiation of a template or generic unit to cause the creation of a new piece of object code, varied according to the template/generic parameters. (This generally gives faster execution speed, but at the cost of the overall program's object code being bigger.) But, some implementations (optionally) produce a single piece of object code, which calls 'hooks' inside it to provide the variation according to the different template/generic parameters; each instantiation then simply generates a set of appropriate hooks. A pointer to one of these sets of hooks must be passed in on every call into the template/generic. (This generally gives slower speed, but reduces the size of the overall program's object code.) There are other schemes which provide a compromise between these two extremes. I think the relevant point is that, in any eventuality, if a program uses a template or generic unit, then some object code corresponding to that template or generic unit will end up in the program's object code. I feel sure it is the case that the source code for many templates and generic units will constitute an 'original and substantive work' susceptible to a claim of copyright. ------------------------------------- Nick Roberts ------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL and "free" software 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 162+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <373248e6@eeyore.callnetuk.com>, "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: > I think the relevant point is that, in any eventuality, if a program uses a > template or generic unit, then some object code corresponding to that > template or generic unit will end up in the program's object code. I feel > sure it is the case that the source code for many templates and generic > units will constitute an 'original and substantive work' susceptible to a > claim of copyright. Indeed! And in fact some vendors of proprietary software are not at all happy with the model of instantiation by expansion, because it forces them to reveal source code which they want not only to copyright, but also to keep secret. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 162+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-05-18 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 162+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1999-04-20 0:00 air traffic control software Terry J. Westley 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Kevin Rigotti 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) Terry J. Westley 1999-04-21 0:00 ` bill 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Nick Roberts 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net> 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-29 0:00 ` [Offtopic for cl.ada] " Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Roger Espel Llima 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-07 0:00 ` dennison 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net> 1999-05-03 0:00 ` [O/T 4 cla] " Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-10 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-04 0:00 ` James Youngman 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1999-05-18 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Paul Hughett 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Ed Avis [not found] ` <R5qW2.242$jw4.22063@burlma1-snr2> [not found] ` <372ADEED.D907754@doc.ic.ac.uk> 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-08 0:00 ` dewarr 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Peter Seebach 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Alan Braggins 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-03 0:00 ` dennison 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Andy Isaacson 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-04-30 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-30 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-26 0:00 ` spblunt 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Tim Smith 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Kenneth P. Turvey 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Mitch Blevins 1999-05-02 0:00 ` Sam Holden 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Phil Hunt 1999-04-27 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Richard E. Hawkins Esq. 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Barry Margolin 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-21 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software (was: air traffic control software) dennison [not found] ` <DXqW2.244$jw4.22256@burlma1-snr2> [not found] ` <7gdln1$vna$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu> [not found] ` <372ADFBD.4F4C241B@doc.ic.ac.uk> 1999-05-01 0:00 ` GPL and "free" software Lynn Winebarger [not found] ` <7gff2f$8o2@www.inetnow.net> 1999-05-01 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd [not found] ` <m2zp3pat3q.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Joshua E. Rodd 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Ed Avis 1999-05-03 0:00 ` Barry Margolin [not found] ` <7gdd9e$36l$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> [not found] ` <372ADF48.B3C88507@doc.ic.ac.uk> 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox