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/