IP: more on GNU license controversy

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>
>Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:33:31 -0400
>To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
>From: Manny Farber <manny@manny.com>
>Subject: Re: IP: GNU license controversy
>
>Here's it is with attribution interspersed.
>
>
>Manny Farber wrote:
>
>>>> > I think I can use similar logic to argue that the "proprietary"
>>>> > work is also subject to GPL.
>>>> >
>>>> > Immediately prior to compilation, the modified source code is obviously
>>>> > a "derived work" and since the GPL is recursive (under 2b below,
>>>> > any "derived work" falls under GPL), then I could also freely
>>>> > copy and distribute the modified source code (with or without binaries).
>>>> >
>>>> > Also see: "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
>>>> > License, whose permissions
>>>> > for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and 
>>>> every
>>>> > part regardless of
>>>> > who wrote it."
>
>Brad Templeton wrote:
>
>>>>Indeed, but note the first sentence of the message I wrote.  Humans obey
>>>>licences, not programs.  The prorietary program is modifying the GPL'd
>>>>source and generating object code.  It never leaves the source around for
>>>>you to distribute, though you might hack it to try to extract that source,
>>>>and claim it is freely distributable.
>
>Manny Farber wrote:
>
>>>By saying that you'd have to "hack it to extract the source," it seems
>>>you're implying that the patching problem includes a full-fledged, 
>>>integrated
>>>compiler, presumably one that does not read source files from disk
>>>(otherwise it would be easy to obtain the source files).
>>>
>>>So I think you also need to be able to enforce a "no hacking/reverse 
>>>engineering"
>>>provision on your patch.
>
>Brad Templeton wrote:
>
>>>>However, the legal point is that the person who modified the original 
>>>>source
>>>>is the _user_, not the author of the patching program.  The patching 
>>>>program
>>>>is a stand alone system not under the auspices of the GPL.
>
>Manny Farber wrote:
>
>>>Well I thought the whole point was to charge for software that uses GPL 
>>>source.
>>>
>>>But I don't think you can make a recipe (patching program)
>>>that calls for two pounds of chicken (GNU source) and then claim that the
>>>resulting entree (the binary from the modified code) is not derived from 
>>>chicken.
>>>The recipe proves that it is.
>>>
>>>Why would anyone pay for the recipe when they can just ftp the entree
>>>and eat it for free [assuming someone has "hacked" it to obtain source]? 
>>>And knowing they've circumvented people trying to circumvent
>>>GPL would just make it taste better. Please pass the salt.
>
>Brad Templeton wrote:
>
>>>>The GPL says that anybody who wants to modify and distribute GPLd code must
>>>>also GPL the result and provide source.  The author of the patching program
>>>>is not modifying and distributng GPL code.  He is only writing a program
>>>>which does this, which other people run.
>>>>
>>>>If the other people, the users who run the modifying program, were to
>>>>then distribute the results, they would be bound by the GPL, bound to
>>>>distribute the source that they don't have.   So they can't distribute
>>>>it.  But they don't want to, they just want to run it.
>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/