Re: scope of linux in the corporates...


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

That is not what the GPL says, and the GPL applies here because you
have no other way to get the right to create the derivative work in the
first place.

The GNU GPL differentiates between the requirments for copying,
creating a derivative work, and distribution.

There are no requirements for copying (other than accepting the
terms of the license as a whole). There are additional
requirements for identifying modification. And there are
specific requirements for distribution.

That is not true, section 3 says:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

I suppose you could read that to apply only if you both copy *and*
distribute, but I don't think that's really all that plausible. That
phrase grants you both the right to copy and the right to distribute,
but if you don't comply with its requirements, you don't get either.

All of the things following it basically "accompany" the binary with
the source code. So, as I read it, you may not copy without
accompanying.

Allowing your employee to use one of your copies for his work is not
distribution.

You are correct that it is not distribution, however it is copying.
Copying has the same copyright implications that distribution does.

The same copyright implications yes, but not the same licensing
requirements, which is what the GNU GPL addresses.

Where do you see the GPL distinguishing them? I've looked over it
pretty carefully and both section 1 and section 2 list copying and
distributing before imposing requirements.

GPL
section 3 only allows you to *make* a copy if you *accompany* it with
source code or a transferrable offer for source code.

Section 3 allows you to *distribute* a copy under specific
conditions. It does not restrict in any way making a copy.

The GPL does not need to restrict the making of a copy because you
*cannot* make a copy to begin with. You only have the right to make a
copy if the GPL gives it to you, because copyright law restricts
copying to only the author.

GPL section 3 grants both the right to copy and the right to distribute
subject to precisely the same "accompany" requirement. Again, here's
what it says:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

Notice that it says, "copy and distribute".

You are free to make an use copies as you see fit.

Provided you comply with the GPL. If the GPL permitted unrestricted
copying, its restrictions on distributing would be a legal nullity.
(It's complicated to explain why, but trust me, the GPL *has* to impose
the restrictions when you copy.)

I guess what it would come down to is whether or not the "accompany"
requirement only applies to distribution. I could see reasonable
arguments both ways.

There is no statement about "copy or distribute", only about
"copy and distribute". It applies to distributing a copy, not
to using a copy.

The "and" there means that it grants you both rights. This is a grant
of right, not an imposition of restriction because you start out
without the right to do either.

If this were not so, the GPL would be a legal nullity. (Again, it's
tricky to explain why, but it has to do with both the technical
definition of "distribute" and first sale rights.)

Clearly what allows is the fact that I have gcc installed
(copied to) half a dozen computers... but only ever put the
source code on two of those computers, and in fact have since
deleted it from one of them. A company is also allowed to do
it the same whay I as an individual do.

I honestly don't see why what you have done is compliant with the GPL.
You have copied a covered work and have not accompanied it with either
the source code or an offer for the source code. What do you think
lawfully authorized this copying? (Copyright law specifically restricts
the right to make copies.)

Do you think that I could then take the copies you made and distribute
them without source code? After all, *I* am not "copying *and*
distributing", am I?

DS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 64-bit Linux pricing - yeepers!
    ... >]call grep, my program doesn't contain grep, so I can license it however ... >]specifically reference the GPL where you think it supports your claim. ... if I take source code from GPL'd program A and use ... uClibc C library, and busybox, and call that a distribution. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
    ... >> you should add a note pointing to the Knoppix site, ... but that's not what section 3 of the GPL says. ... source code distributed with the binaries, ... useful distribution, but it's playing fast ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL
    ... Why would you want to restrict use? ... The GPL doesn't restrict distribution. ... to create new software that can be distributed under whatever licence you ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: GUI With Ruby
    ... with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less ... Let me point out a case where the GPL did some good. ... only that such a distribution tell the recipient where the ... The argument against following the GPL license terms seems to me to be ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: ubuntu licence
    ... From the GPL v2 (just because I ... Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable ... machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, ... is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you ...
    (Ubuntu)