From: Horst von Brand <brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Monta Vista software license terms
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:42:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302112042.h1BKgTPu014960@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:39:57 PST." <20030211193959.AAA14852@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> said:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:42:26 +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
> >>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:42:45 -0600, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> >>>I certainly agree, but the problem is the NDA puts the shoe on the
> >>>other foot and now it's the customer that has to consult a lawyer
> >>>or risk a nuisance suit before proceeding. So while it may not
> >>>forbid, it certainly discourages and impedes. Let me point out that
> >>>I never saw the NDA in question but said coworker was sufficiently
> >>>intimidated by it that he was unwilling to give me a copy of the
> >>>kernel and gcc sources because of it.
> >> I believe such a provision would, unfortunately, by considered
> >>legally enforceable. The rationale would be that the rights you (the
> >>recipient of the derived work) have under the GPL would only apply if
> >>the distributor were bound by the GPL. The only way the distributor
> >>could be bound by the GPL was if he or she did something that he
> >>didn't have the right to do without the GPL to give him or her such a
> >>right.
> >The GPL gives me the right to distribute modified versions _only if >I
> >comply with the GPL_. And GPL forbids further restrictions when
> >distributing.
> I realize that. But that has nothing to do with what I said, which
> analyzes only those rights you have without agreeing to the GPL by
> virtue of the fact that you possess the work and were not subject to
> any restrictions in the process of acquiring and using it.
I just don't get it. If I get sources to foo under the GPL, I can spindle
and mutilate them to my heart's content at home. But as soon as I do
distribute it, the GPL is in force. There is no "not bound by the GPL
because I'm not doing ..." and then distributing "and I wasn't bound by
GPL, so..."
> >If your bizarre interpretation was right, no software licence at all
> >would have any validity. In particular, I'd be more than very surprised
> >if the GPL was so sloppily written. It was written with the input of
> >eminent lawyers, after all.
> Your generalization doesn't apply because of several major
> differences between most software licenses and the GPL:
>
> 1) Most software licenses do not grant everyone the right to use the
> work covered.
Irrelevant.
> 2) Most software licenses do not grant anyone the right to create
> derived works.
Irrelevant.
> 3) Most software licenses require your assent before you can use the
> covered work, in fact, most require your assent before you have the
> right to possess the covered work.
Don't see the relevance here. Besides, you never "possess" anything, you
are just given permision to use.
> However, one sticky point is that the GPL talks about 'modifying' a
> work. You can create derived works without modifying the original
> work and the GPL is unclear in this respect.
Right. If I take gcc and make a C# compiler based on it, it is also GPL as
far as it is derived (i.e., a substantial ammount of code was pilfered from
gcc). No change to gcc needed, just what constitutes a derivative work.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-11 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-05 11:58 Monta Vista software license terms Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-05 17:04 ` Disconnect
2003-02-05 17:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 17:10 ` Robert Love
2003-02-05 17:18 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-05 17:23 ` Robert Love
2003-02-05 17:36 ` andrea.glorioso
2003-02-05 17:57 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-02-05 18:13 ` andrea.glorioso
2003-02-05 18:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 18:24 ` Steven Dake
2003-02-05 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 19:41 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-05 18:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 18:52 ` Steven Dake
2003-02-05 18:31 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-02-05 18:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 18:41 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-02-05 18:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 19:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-02-05 18:51 ` Ben Greear
2003-02-05 18:54 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-02-05 18:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 19:25 ` Hugo Mills
2003-02-06 8:08 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-02-05 18:44 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-05 17:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-05 17:38 ` andrea.glorioso
2003-02-05 17:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 18:04 ` andrea.glorioso
2003-02-06 1:11 ` jeff millar
2003-02-06 2:19 ` James Buchanan
2003-02-06 9:12 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-02-06 14:37 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-06 18:41 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-02-06 19:14 ` Charles Cazabon
2003-02-06 20:36 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-02-10 7:18 ` Oliver Xymoron
2003-02-10 7:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-10 13:24 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-10 17:42 ` Oliver Xymoron
2003-02-10 21:33 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-11 7:42 ` Horst von Brand
2003-02-11 19:39 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-11 20:42 ` Horst von Brand [this message]
2003-02-11 22:11 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-12 8:00 ` Horst von Brand
2003-02-12 13:26 ` Mark Hounschell
2003-02-12 15:32 ` Chris Friesen
2003-02-12 20:18 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-13 2:21 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-13 2:41 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-13 3:01 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 3:25 ` Derek Fawcus
2003-02-12 4:13 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-05 18:47 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-05 17:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 18:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-02-05 18:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-05 18:33 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-02-05 18:40 ` Russell King
2003-02-06 11:31 ` Alex Bennee
2003-02-05 17:28 ` Chris Friesen
2003-02-05 17:31 ` Russell King
2003-02-05 19:15 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-05 19:02 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-05 19:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-05 21:11 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-06 23:06 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-02-06 23:59 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-09 14:52 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-02-09 16:50 ` Nilmoni Deb
2003-02-06 19:11 Dan Kegel
2003-02-06 20:38 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-02-07 17:28 ` Dan Kegel
2003-02-11 22:27 Larry McVoy
[not found] <20030212201840.AAA15967%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-02-12 20:46 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-02-12 21:30 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-12 21:41 ` Derek Fawcus
[not found] <20030212213022.AAA17490%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-02-12 21:43 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-02-12 22:31 ` David Schwartz
2003-02-12 23:04 ` Daniel Forrest
2003-02-12 23:28 ` David Schwartz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200302112042.h1BKgTPu014960@eeyore.valparaiso.cl \
--to=brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de \
--cc=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).