Re: scope of linux in the corporates...

"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Please just reconcile this one quote:

Easy: You are *not* reading it correctly.

Which am I not reading correctly? The two excerpts are in direct
contradiction.

Eben Moglen understands what the GPL means. If you see a
conflict, rest assured the error is *yours*.

We can start with the assumption the Eben Moglen knows what it says
and what it means. Any contradiction between what he says and what
you or I think it means indicates an error on our part. In this
case, that is *you*.

No, the error is on your part. Eben Moglen does not mean what you think
he means. If he did, there would be the direct contradiction I cited.

That is *your* misunderstanding.

Eben Moglen, in all of those quotes, is giving informal, imprecise
summary information. You cannot derive legal conclusions about edge
cases from what he's saying.

Bull***. He is talking about court cases, about enforcing the
GPL, and about what the courts are doing when the GPL is enforced.

Then explain why he says you don't need to accept the GPL to modify a
covered work and the GPL specifically says you do.

*You* are misreading one or the other.

The terms "copying" and "distributing" have precise legal meanings that
determine what you do and don't need the copyright holder's permission
to do, and hence when you have to agree with the terms.

Yes, and *you* clearly do not have a clue.

I certainly do. You are the one who sometimes uses "distribute" to mean

*YOU* are the one who continues to claim that it means
something other than what the GPL intended it to mean. The GPL
was *not* written in legalese, it cannot be read in legalese,
and it is never interpreted in legalese.

You claimed "precise legal meaning" has no significance as far
as the GPL is concerned. Terms in a license mean exactly what
the writer indicates the meaning is. Court decisions defining
terms from other cases do *not* change the meaning of terms used
in a license.

If Moglen and Stallman had never written about what the GPL
means, you might have a leg to stand on claiming legalese... but
they have been explaining it for 15 years, and you cannot ignore
what they say it means.

the right reserved under copyright and sometimes uses it to mean
transferring a lawfully-made copy.

That is *your* game.

You are using them by their common English meanings and assuming from
that that you can tell when the GPL does and doesn't apply. You just
can't do that.

Eben Moglen can. Which is why I quoted him. Obviously you do
not have a clue.

Eben Moglen is using their common English meanings, the GPL is using
them in their legal sense. That is why the two appear to conflict and
why you are misreading Moglen and the GPL.

The GPL was written in common English, to be understood by
programmers, not in legalese for those who want to pretend at
being Sea Lawyers on the Internet.

You must accompany every copy with source code (or an offer for it) --
always.

When I copy it from my desktop to my laptop??? You are silly.

You just switched from the legal meaning of copying to the common sense
meaning. You can't do that. You either have to stick to one or the
other.

Don't be silly. I have stated any number of times that when I
put a copy of gcc on my laptop I do *not* need to put the source
code on the laptop. You have repeatedly claimed that is a
violation of the GPL. Your contention is silly.

Copying from your desktop to your laptop may or may not be copying in
the copyright sense. But even if it is, I think you could argue that
the same source code can "accompany" both copies.

I don't need the source code on my laptop in any case. I don't
need to offer it either. I don't need to even *have* it, or
know where to find it. (For that matter, it also does not need
to be on my desktop, or on *any* computer that I have access to.)

That's the gist of what the GPL says. You must accept the GPL
to create a derivative work in the first place (assuming that doing so
is not fair use), no matter what Eben Moglen says.

You do realize who Eben Moglen is, right?

Absolutely.

"No matter what Eben Moglen says" is not an appropriate phrase for
you in this thread.

Nobody should miss who you are: a confused guy who does not
understand the GPL.

No, you are confused. You are misreading Moglen and the GPL. Moglen
does not mean to say that you can modify a GPL'd work without accepting
the GPL. He simply means that you must accept it, but it imposes no
requirements on you so long as you don't transfer the copy to anyone.
(Whether or not that transfer legally qualifies as distribution.)

So how does that differ from what *I* have said. *You* are the
one who claims I have to have the source code on my laptop!

You've twisted yourself into a pretty tight knot from which
there is no escape. Anything you say is going to contradict
something else you've already said.

To be clear, transferring a file electronically *is* copying, but it is
*not* distribution. Legally, distribution must be of *a* copy, and
downloading or P2P sharing results in a *new* copy at the recipient. It
is copying but not distribution. If it is distribution, which or what
copy is distributed?

Lets see, when I send it from my desktop to my laptop, you say
that is a distribution, and therefore I *must* provide myself
with a copy of the source code on the laptop.

Absurd.

Please make up whatever other silliness you want to end with,
but unless you cease being ridiculous I will not be responding.

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

Quantcast