Re: scope of linux in the corporates...

"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:

You've quoted below where it does *exactly* that.

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

How can it be anything else? It says "and", not "or". The
stated restrictions applies when both "copy" and "distribution"
are operative. You can copy while not distributing, but you
necessarily must copy if you are distributing. The statement is
clear.

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.

It does not say that.

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.

So I can't copy it to my laptop, without putting the source on the
laptop? That would be absurd.

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

At several points. Initially, in the preamble:

"We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the
software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you
legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the
software."

Under "TERMS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"
the title of which clearly distinguishes between the two, in
Section 2 it also clearly distinguishes between modifying your
own copies as opposed to modified copies that are for
distribution.

"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or
any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the
Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work
under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also
meet all of these conditions:"

Particularly note that of those conditions, Items (a) and (c)
apply to all of the above, but Item (b) specifies that it
applies (only) to "any work that you distribute or publish".

Note also this statement as to the intent of all of the above,

"... the intent is to exercise the right to control the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program."

It does *not* say it is to control copying, it specifically says it
is to control distribution.

pretty carefully and both section 1 and section 2 list copying and
distributing before imposing requirements.

Not copying *or* distributing. Regardless, see above about Item (c)
in Section 2, which clearly applies only to distribution and not to
copying.

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.

The license give you the right to make copies without an restriction.

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.

The same applies to distribution. Yet the GPL very specifically
*does* place restrictions on rights granted for distribution.

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".

Exactly. It does not say "copy or 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.

That is an absurd statement.

(It's complicated to explain why, but trust me, the GPL *has* to impose
the restrictions when you copy.)

Lets just see you try!

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.

It does not say "copy or distribute" in relation to the restrictions
cited. It specifically does say

"... the intent is to exercise the right to control the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program."

Note also (emphasis added),


5. You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you
permission to *modify* or *distribute* the Program or its
derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if
you do not accept this License. Therefore, by *modifying* or
*distributing* the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to
do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Note the lack of any reference to "copying".

On the other hand, in Section 6 is says (emphasis added),

6. 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.

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.)

It is not at all tricky to explain why. You have no right other
than those licensed. It clearly says you can copy and use the
program as you like, but you cannot distribute or modify it
except as described.

"We ... offer you this license which gives you
legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the
software."

Each item is distinct, copying, distributing and/or modifying.
Each is specifically allowed. There are additional restrictions
place on distribution and modification, but none on copying for
other purposes (such as use on different computer by the same
owner).

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.)

The GPL licensed that right to me. It does *not* require that I
keep the source or said offer on all of my computers. It does
not even require that I ever obtain the source or the said
offer. (Whoever distributed the copy to me has to have offered it,
but I am not required to take it in order to copy the program onto
multiple computers.)

Your interpretation is absurd.

Do you think that I could then take the copies you made and distribute

I have no authority to distribute it to you in that form, nor do
you.

them without source code? After all, *I* am not "copying *and*
distributing", am I?

If I offer the binaries to you *and* comply with an offer of the
source code, *you* are not distributing and no you do not need
to take the source code, but you can still make 15 copies if you
like.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: license question?
    ... is *not* a derivative work then *no* license is required at all? ... Clause a) allows you include the source code with the ... distribution and in that case you explicitly do not have to make the ... discusses the "recipient" receiving certain rights (i.e. the person to ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: license question?
    ... is *not* a derivative work then *no* license is required at all? ... Clause a) allows you include the source code with the ... distribution and in that case you explicitly do not have to make the ... discusses the "recipient" receiving certain rights (i.e. the person to ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: TMS470
    ... Jack Klein wrote: ... distribution of any source code that you develop that merely uses the ... Jack - I read the/a GNU license numerous years ago which required ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Where can I buy Suse 9.2 Cds on the cheap
    ... " TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION ... This License applies to any program or other work which contains ... notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; ... source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
    ... might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting "for". ... Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. ... The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the ... software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing ...
    (SuSE)