From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) Subject: Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/05/11 Message-ID: <7ha31n$htn$1@Mercury.mcs.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 476724283 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7h83tf$150$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7h8aqf$4nm$1@Mercury.mcs.net> <7h97qi$t1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7h97qi$t1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar 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