Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code
From: Peter T. Breuer (ptb_at_lab.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: Kasper Dupont: "Re: IPC between tasks in kernel"
- Previous message: kernel.lover: "Which function at link layer sends packet?"
- In reply to: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Next in thread: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Reply: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:06:23 +0100
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> news:d349d2-31n.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es...
>
> > 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 copyright and may not be published without the authors permission.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?).
>
> Wow, aren't you clever! Damn, I'm so impressed! You zeroed in on my use
> of the word "information"
This is the difference I thought you were focussing on, because if I
substitute "source code" for "information" in your statements, I obtain
only evident falsehoods. Why say "information" if you did not mean
that, then, as opposed to "source code"?
> and used that to ignore the entire substance of
> what I said! Wow. That's amazing. To what new end will you focus your
> amazing powers of ignoring?
None.
> > 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.
>
> Except he can't do that because the GPL prohibits him from doing so.
The (original) author decides what licence to use. If he chose GPL,
that is his business. I don't know quite who you mean ... maybe you
think that a person who RECEIVES gpl code, under GPL licence, is an
author? No. Not so. If you think that, try it on a harry potter book,
and see what happens. Take a chapter, modify it, then sell the modified
chapter to a russian publishing house. Wait for nuclear war. Claim that
it was your right to sell it since YOU were the author :).
If you mean somebody else, who is not an author, original or otherwise,
should decide what licence he gives you, a third party, the code under,
sorry, he can't. He only received it under a certain licence, which
defined what he could do with it. He agreed, freely.
> >> you will have
> >> implications on attempts to get patent protection.
> >
> > Good - software can't be patented (except in the crazy US of A).
>
> For the love of god, nobody was talking about patenting the software.
Looks like it above, but ...
> What I was talking about, and this was perfectly clear and I can't imagine
> any way you could have misread it except deliberately, was whether the
> information was made public.
There you are: you are talking about INFORMATION.
What is this mysterious thing? I don't know of any that would be in a
source code! Reread my opening paragraphs for my guesses on what you
may mean.
> Whether something is public or not has
> implications on attempts to patent it,
What "it"?
> so looking at patent law and
> precendent provides a good way to know what it means for something to be
> "public" or not.
Nix.
> That is not a restriction on distribution of the source code. There are
> no restrictions on distribution of the source code. The source code is
> public at that point.
Since you say that you are talking about "information" (what?), why
switch now to talk about the source code? The source code was always
available with the program! The very worst you have to do is buy the
program to get it. But I'm afraid nobody is forced to give you the
program just because you say you want it. Market forces apply there.
There is an interesting point here. If you obtain the program from
somebody, even for free, then they must give you the source code.
But is the original author obliged to give out the source code? It
seems to me that an OA can distribute a GPL program without ever giving
away the source code. That would stop every recipient from being able
to distribute the program AT ALL.
> > 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.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? When you have a restriction
> (copyright) and a license that removes *all* restrictions on distribution
You don't. The GPL adds restrictions, it doesn't remove them. It
prevents you distributing the program without also supplying the source
code.
> (the GPL), then in sum you have no restrictions.
Nonsense.
> You can't point to the
> copyright and argue it's a restriction while ignoring the license that
I'm not arguing. Copyright is a right that restricts the actions of
other people than the original author. Just like the "right to life"
restricts them from murdering you.
> removes the restriction! That's nuts.
The licence adds restrictions: it forbids recipients from doing
whatever they like with the program. They are required to distribute it
only with the source code (available).
I might add that in return the GPL grants a right - the right to
distribute the program, which you would normally not have.
But then the GPL also adds a restriction to that extra right too! It
requires you to bind the recipients to the GPL too.
> Nothing in the GPL prevents someone from distributing the source code to
> anyone they want.
On the contrary, it gives them the right to do so, which they normally
would not have. I think that is very generous.
> They are not required to get the person to agree to any
> specific terms before they get the source code.
Yes they are - they are required to agree to the GPL.
> (Of course, it's still
> subject to copyright. But a newspaper article has full copyright protection
> and is still public when it's published and distributed.)
Try copying a newspaper and distributing it and see how far you get.
> Copyright has nothing to do with whether a work is public or not.
We are still seeking your definition of the word?
> A New
> York Times front page article is most certainly fully protected by
> copyright. It is also most certainly public.
I would say that the first is certain and the second is not, since the
meaning of "public" is not defined, and the NYT article clearly is not
public property, nor in the public domain, nor ... (well, other uses of
the word "public").
> How else would you make
> something public if not by publishing it on the front page of the New York
> Times?
You'd publish it, if that is the sense you mean "public" in. Is that
what you are trying to mean? "published"? Well, to decide when
something has been published, a court takes into account several
things, which I will not go into.
> Your talent at making the weaker argument appear the stronger rivals
> that of Socrates himself.
Socrates, like me, argues purely in straight lines. First say what you
mean, then we will discuss it.
Peter
- Next message: Kasper Dupont: "Re: IPC between tasks in kernel"
- Previous message: kernel.lover: "Which function at link layer sends packet?"
- In reply to: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Next in thread: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Reply: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
