Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code

From: Peter T. Breuer (ptb_at_lab.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:31:09 +0100

David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
> In my example, you gave someone a copy of some information with no
> restrictions. I maintain that this makes the information legally public.

INFORMATION now may be publicised, but not what you gave them - that's
copyright and may not be published without the authors permission. And
there is no really no "information" in source code itself! - it's not a
newsflash, you know. The information lies behind the code, and the code
is a derivate of that. So whatever INFORMATION you published would be
your guesswork about something else, and you may or may not have leeway
to publish it depending on many things (is it libellous? True?).

> In
> other words, you can no longer assert trade secret protection,

That's great, and is precisely what the person who gave you the code
wants. He'd have given you the code under a restrictive licence
otherwise.

> you will have
> implications on attempts to get patent protection.

Good - software can't be patented (except in the crazy US of A).

> In the current situation (a GPL'd work) there are no restrictions on
> *distribution* and none can be placed.

Good. But yes, there is a restriction - namely that you must supply the
source code along with the program. It's a restriction stopping you
trying to restrict access to something the author did not want
restricted.

> >> >> Unless
> >> >> everyone who has the information is under your control or otherwise
> >> >> restricted from distributing it, the information is public.
> >> >
> >> > No it isn't.
> >>
> >> It is.
>
> > Well, I meant to contradict only the unconditional sense of your statement
> > (if it has one) because as I said, your statement is (a) hypothetical,
> > and (b) the hypothesese are not satisfied:
>
> My statement presents the definition of "public". In the current case,
> the GPL *prohibits* restrictions on distribution.

You are in the context of work not governed by a licence. In that case
your work is protected by copyright (and such fragments of IP law as may
apply). So it is true that everyone "who has the [you write info, but
that is specious, as they have a code, not info] ... [is] restricted
from distributing it". Hence your hypothesis fails.

> I will strengthen my original statement -- if you have one copy of a

You can't, since it is vacuous, being predicated on a false hypothesis.

> work that comes into the possession over a third party, and you can place no
> restrictions on that third party's ability to distribute that work, then you
> have made it legally and effectively public.

No you haven't. The author retains copyright. Try it and see!

[my patience evaporates at this point .. sorry]

Peter