Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:51 +1000, tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I am however disagreeing with the justification given in the position
statement. The position statement implies that the FSF may be in
breach of contract, at least morally, by trying to release a version
of the GPL that is not in keeping with previous versions. I think the
preamble of the GPLv2 and the explanations given of the FSF intentions
over the years are completely consistent with the GPLv3 current draft.

Right ... see the semantic argument over the difference between use and
distribution I gave Neil a while ago.

The FSF has always maintained (and still does) that you can use the
covered work for anything (although the v2 language saying this is gone
in v3). I believe even the FSF accepts the position that reaching
beyond distribution to control end use would be a violation of the
spirit of GPLv2 .... if they didn't we wouldn't be quibbling over the
semantic meanings of the two terms. Their latest press release on this
actually says "Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no
use restrictions, and the final version won't either."

ok, lets take a really obvious example. Say that HP decided to
incorporate modified parts of the Linux kernel in HPUX on in their
printers. HP would be distributing the resulting image for people to
use. The fact that people are 'using' it in the end does not alter the
fact that HP would be in violation of the GPL during the act of
distribution.

That's correct. They have to comply with the distribution duties as
outlined in the licence (which they could do by publishing all of the
HPUX pieces they incorporated, of course). However, once they comply
with the distribution requirements, they're free to do whatever they
want with the resulting OS in their printer ... including checking for
only HP authorised ink cartridges. You can take exception to this check
and not buy the resulting printer, but you can't tell them not to do the
check without telling them how they should be using the embedded
platform.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • RE: BSD legal question
    ... >> saying the entire code now becomes GPL, it's the GPL saying that the ... the two are the same - the FSF owns copyright on the GPL ... > original license of any part that has an independent existence. ... > If the license of the part is incompatible, distribution of the whole ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: DRAW 1280, 1024
    ... I dislike about the GPL have nothing to do with commercializing things ... has been used by the FSF as justification for threatening small ... Linux distros with lawsuits if they don't devote significant resources ... about creating and distributing a distribution. ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • RE: BSD legal question
    ... >> The FSF says that the entire code now becomes GPL. ... This is a hairsplit since FSF=GPL, but yes, technically it's not the FSF ... Except that this is only the case if your definition of distribution ... make install) and whala- instantly the GPL licensed libraries that ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Ruby licence...
    ... Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing ... > selling the _distribution_ of free software. ... The only additional license requirement above the GPL is ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: [PATCH 01/12] thinkpad_ec: New driver for ThinkPad embedded controller access
    ... Well, I offer this patch under the GPL, so anyone can do it. ... It is a lightweight version of what the FSF requires, ... which is a legal contract asserting the same, ... No, we're not requiring an ink signature, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)