Re: scope of linux in the corporates...


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

First, I should remind you that anyone who possesses a lawfully made
and acquired copy of a copyrighted work may transfer that copy to
another person, even for a fee if they wish. So if you could make a
copy of a GPL'd work without having to accompany it with the source,
you could transfer that copy to another person without needing
permission from the GPL to "distribute" the work.

The copy you made is *not* the copy you can sell.

If you can lawfully make a copy (that is, you have the right to make a
copy under copyright law), then you can sell of transfer that copy.
That's what 17 USC 109 says.

An example would be that I can buy a set of Slackware CD's. I can
then copy all of the files to my desktop computer. I can also copy
some of them (the binaries) to my laptop. I can copy all or part of
them to my server, to my development system. Etc. etc.

I *cannot* make a copy of any of those files and sell it to you
without complying with the various terms of the GPL for those
parts that are under the GPL.

That's because you only got the right to make the copy in the first
place by agreeing to be bound by the GPL's terms on how you could
distribute it. (Which is precisely my position.) That is, the copy was
encumbered when you made it.

Second, I should ask you -- what do you think the distinction is
between "copying" and "distributing"? You seem to think there's a right
under copyright to restrict the distribution of lawfully-made copies.
17 USC 109, "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC
106(3)], the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made
under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled,
without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise
dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."

Please read the law at least once.

Here is a valid opinion:

The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to
acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify
GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden
or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require
you to accept a license, including contractual provisions
outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their
works. The free software movement thinks all those activities
are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want
to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who
uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and
accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute
software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted
when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever
redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that
anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the
GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered
software to include the license text, so everyone is fully
informed.
Eben Moglen

That does not mean "distribute" as in "distribute as opposed to copy".
It means "distribute" in a very informal way. You notice that he never
uses the word "copy" or implies that you can copy GPL'd works freely.

If he meant to distinguish copying from distributing, he would have to
have made his quote much more confusing. Really all you have to do is
read GPL section 3 and realize that the "and" is a grant of two rights.

I am not sure why he thinks you can experimentally modify GPL'd
software without accepting the GPL. It seems to me that copyright law
prohibits the creation of derivative works and the GPL imposes
conditions on their creation. GPL section 5 directly contradicts him:

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.

Again, if you interpret has statement as an informal summary, then I
guess he could mean that while you must accept the GPL, there is no
effect to that acceptance since the GPL doesn't require you to do
anything until you do anything that separates the binary from the
source.

DS

.

Relevant Pages

  • [PATCH] change libata license from OSL+GPL to GPL
    ... - changes license of all code from OSL+GPL to plain ole GPL ... indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be possible. ... authored the license, but the intent of the person who *chose* the ... talks about "legal permissions to copy, distribute and/or modify" ... the conclusion is quite possibly that, in legal terms, it isn't. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Copyleft and embedded Forth
    ... rights of another. ... Developer may do with p.d. ... Use isn't an issue with any free software license. ... You have to choose to use GPL software. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... you can't use a license ... At least this is how the GPL is ... you cannot use a license to turn actions that do not violate ... copyright law, not as defined in the GPL or in the common sense ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: GPL compliance
    ... Your main intent seems to be to spread FUD about the GPL and because ... every piece of code that is packaged has a copyright file. ... worrying only about the Canonical license for the whole CD and I was ... what does Red Hat have to do with it? ...
    (Ubuntu)