From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/29 Message-ID: <_91W2.175$jw4.18662@burlma1-snr2>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472381683 Distribution: world References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g7tlc$j5g$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu> <7g8fid$c7c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net> X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Trace: /bQNuYYiPuhjDoPZv7IoihYlpB7ajHjJ2Ui1EaGBC60A2qxjIIKcuaSgozKwt7wMdkcWkRr/Hvhr!81jH7NhLjmp/sA4RLE1bphaiuzVWkdgMIkgdaU9aWEbnXNV1aY+Z13hVp/Lclg== Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA X-Copies-To: never NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:03:38 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Originator: barmar@bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7g8ip8$skl@www.inetnow.net>, Ken Arromdee 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.