[POLITICS] Re: When is the Last Time You Booted to Windows?

[Mike McCarty]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 11:35, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
>>>>My position on this matter is that if one writes something original,
>>>>then the moment he writes it, it is his sole property.
>>>
>>>
>>>But, you have to make an exception for a work that modifies
>>>something covered by the GPL.  If you do such work you do not
>>
>>Les, read what I wrote carefully. I stated "something original".
>>Even under GPL, if I modify what is there, then my modifications
>>belong to me only.
> 
> 
> I think I understood you.  I'm pointing out that the FSF disagrees
> and thinks they can control your original work if it might
> be used with theirs in certain ways - for example:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins

But there is precedent to this type of argument. Consider the
case with patents (which are different, yes, but follow along).
Many people believe that holding a patent on a device conveys or
protects an exclusive right to manufacture the device. This is
untrue. It conveys or protects a right to prohibit anyone else
from manufacturing it. But the holder of the patent may not,
in fact, have the right to manufacture the device of which
he holds the patent.

ISTM that a similar argument could be made. Just because
one holds a copyright, one does not necessarily have the right
to publish, only to prevent anyone else from publishing. This
is not an opinion, just pondering how it might be viewed by
a court.

>>>control it.  You cannot even give it away without restrictions.
>>
>>I'd have to ponder this part a bit. If I write a little shell
>>script which, given someone else' copy of something GPL, will
>>modify it into something else, I don't see the problem.
> 
> 
> I don't have a handy reference, but I've seen RMS or the FSF
> quoted as saying you could not sell patches to GPL code, and

I didn't suggest supplying patches. But ISTM that under the
circumstances I suggest, it would be the one who runs the
script who cannot redistribute what he produces. I see nothing
in either the GPL nor the LGPL which prohibits me from distributing
under any terms I like a script which processes text in
certain ways, no matter what the source of that text,
and which happens, when fed text of a certain routine, produces
text of another routine. This may just be an oversight in
the GPL.

A patch, OTOH, contains some of the original text.

> you can't supply a library where the user does the link with
> GPL code to avoid the terms on the combined work.  I don't think

I have seen that argument from Richard Stallman in both the
GPL and LGPL case.

> there is any legal precedent to support this, but I wouldn't
> want to pay the court costs to prove otherwise.

Neither does anyone else, which is one reason there is a
paucity of specialty device drivers for Linux. Which, AIUI,
is what Mr. Richard Stallman wants to happen. (This is based
on private correspondence between RS and me in or about 1986.)

>>The phrase "with any other license" is rather encompassing, isn't
>>it? But your point is taken. It is the stated purpose of Richard
>>Stallman to stamp out, eradicate, and eliminate proprietary software.
> 
> 
> The point of most other licenses is either to encourage users
> to buy their own copy in the proprietary case or to encourage
> users to use a copy in the free-but-non-GPL cases.  The GPL is
> the only one with the intent to discourage use in circumstances
> not approved by RMS.

Probably still overstated, but essentially correct.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!