Judicial Order in MySQL AB vs. Nusphere Suit

bkuhn writes: "Judge Saris has ruled on the preliminary injunction motion. The Court recognizes in today's order that MySQL AB "seems to have the better argument" on the GNU GPL matter. The Court fully recognized the need for expert testimony at trial about the GNU GPL and the technical facts at hand, particularly as to why static linking of software components into a single, unified, compiled binary forms a derivative work of the original components."

Comments

It won't last

[alange1]

It won't make it to trial. Someone will get paid off.

Is my cynicism showing?

Yipee.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has got to give the GPL some cred. (or destroy it altogether)

Hopefully it'll be the former.

Re:Yipee.

[ealar dlanvuli]

if/when it actually comes down to a point thats going to determine the validity of the GPL, there are several large corperations that have interest in the answer.

This might turn out to be an interesting trial.

expert testimony..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I think that RMS would be qualified to provide an expert tesimony about the GNU GPL and static linking. RMS in court talking about the GPL, that would be funny to see :P

Re:expert testimony..

[aridhol]

As funny as it would be to see RMS trying to explain it to the judge, the FSF has better judgement than that. They're sending their General Counsel, Professor Moglen. Being a lawyer, he's probably better suited to being in a courtroom.

Re:expert testimony..

[Guppy06]

"RMS in court talking about the GPL, that would be funny to see :P"

Nikita Kruschev pounding the podium at the UN with his shoe, shouting "We will bury you!" suddenly comes to mind...

Re:expert testimony..

[MisterBlister]

That's about the worst possible thing that could happen.. Sort of like letting Bill Gates testify at Microsoft's trial (or during their dispositions anyway). Both of those guys are probably more alike than they are different though neither would admit it and there is obviously at least a couple ideological differences.

in a related story

[AttackShipsOnFire]

Judge Saris moves into a Mansion in Redmond, Washington as the GPL is declared illegal and anyone found using or advocating use of it will be sentenced to life in prison.

Re:in a related story

[seann]

That would be a very scary case, however, it would make for a good made for tv movie (think antitrust).

Re:in a related story

[Anonymous Coward]

why the ____ would he be modded as troll? Don't you have any sense of humor?
I thought his post was funny!
You moderators don't get out much do you?

Re:in a related story

[Anonymous Coward]

: You moderators don't get out much do you?

Out...where?

Love,
the mods.

Finally: The GNU GPL tested in a trial.

[Nicopa]

I guess this is the most relevant quote Judge Saris made clear that she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license.

"seems to have the better argument"

[Pinball Wizard]

jeez, I would say so. They wrote the program, they hold the trademark. It's theirs. They have every right to say how their name is used.

If you don't like the way someone runs their GPL project you have one choice: fork it, and call it something else. But if NuSphere wants to sell "NuSphere MySQL" I would think it would be in its best interest to respect the trademark and hard work of its owners and inventors.

Re:"seems to have the better argument"

[QuantumG]

The "better argument" claim was made in regards to the GPL enforcement issue, not the trademark issue. The judge was indicating that MySQL's claim that NuSphere violated the GPL is more believable than NuSphere's claim that they didn't.

Linking

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this will be an unpopular viewpoint here, but I'm actually hoping for this to go against MySQL. The definitions of linking and derivative in the GPL are vague and confusing. Forcing the FSF to rewrite them or be given specific meaning by a judge would be tremendously helpful. This isn't as dangerous as it sounds because if the license is invalidated, users are granted no additional rights over a traditionally copyrighted work. So, code wouldn't be in danger of "escaping" in the meantime.

Re:Linking

[seann]

"rewriting the FSF's GPL license is impossible, and it must remain confusing in order to work."

'Removing internet explorer from windows is impossible and without it windows won't work'

..

interesting

Re:Linking

[lkaos]

The wording is definitely ambiguous. In fact, the GPL FAQ even has this question that addresses what constitutes aggregation between a GPL'd program and a non-GPL'd program.

Essentially, noone is really sure how far the GPL extends. I think linking is pretty straight forward but there are other things that are a little sketchy. I think we are due for a GPL v3.0.

If users lose rights from the GPL being thrown out, then that could potentially be very bad. I know in a lot of corporate environments, if the GPL was thrown away and an author couldn't be contacted, a lot of work could potentially become invalid due to licensing problems.

Re:Linking

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This isn't as dangerous as it sounds because if the license is invalidated, users are granted no additional rights over a traditionally copyrighted work. So, code wouldn't be in danger of "escaping" in the meantime

Not really. But it might not be all that bad.

What might happen is that the linking restrictions could be stricken on the doctrine that the linked object isn't a derivative work, but the rest of the license left standing - including the grant of rights on already-released code.

The result would effectively make the existing GPL act about like the LGPL. You could use your rights under the GPL to modify/fix/extend the GPLed module, then use the interpretation that the linked object is not a derivative work to distribute proprietary works statically linked with it. You'd have to distribute source to the modified version of the library routine, which would still be under the (weakened) GPL. But you wouldn't infect the code that calls it with the GPL and could keep that source closed.

Later versions of modules written by single authors could be released under a "hardened" GPL. So could later versions of modules where all the authors could agree, or where the rights had all been assigned to an organization like the FSF. (And the existing version could also be re-relased that way, too, to give future maintainers the ability to release their versions under hardened terms.) But that wouldn't put the already-released versions back in the bottle. And the mix of licenses might cause other problems, such as code branching with some authors making divergent changes that they DON'T want under the hardened license terms.

At least that's how it looks to me. But IANAL. (Or I might be confused about the terms of the GPL and LGPL.)

IMHO this might actually improve things. It would make more of the codebase usable by proprietary applications, and would result in applications that are easier to write equivalents for - because they're essentially glue between open-source library modules.

But that's just my opinion. Some people who released the base modules under GPL no doubt disagree with me. It's THEIR code and thus THEIR right to licence it as they please.

Re:Linking

[RickHunter]

The definitions provided by the FSF have to be vague. The FSF has no other choice in the matter.

See, "Derivative Work" is a term defined by copyright law. Its up to copyright law and/or the US court system to decide if and when a work is a derivative work. Static linking seems like a reasonable "derivative work" definition, if what you're distributing is the statically linked binary. (As you then need the permission of the original copyright owner to distribute their works, which are part of your binary) Dynamic linking's a lot trickier, as anyone could (in theory) drop in a replacement library that's not GPL'd. And invocation of functionality through IPC/RMI/whatever-TLA-it-is-this-week is even more difficult - though I believe RMS has stated that the GPL does not cover this. (Think about what the side effects would be on the Internet!)

However, the US court system may not uphold this. Or it may decide that both static and dynamic linking are derivative. Or Microsoft might pay them off, and they might decide that everything on the same hard disk as a GPL'd program is GPL'd, and therefor the GPL must be banned from use in America. Who knows?

Set that precident

[QuantumG]

why static linking of software components into a single, unified, compiled binary forms a derivative work of the original components

Yes, a lot of us are curious about that too. It is clear that something is derivative if it "contains" the functionality of something else, but is it Just that the licensing agreement of a minor, or even insignificant, part of the derivative work should dominate the remaining portions? For example, if you're writing a program which decodes and formats web pages and you want to include a mechanism for playback of midi files, using a library distributed under the GPL is an impossibility, because even tho it might make up less than 1% of the total code of the product, linking to the library will force the terms of the GPL onto each and every other component. This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law? And like the claim that Napster made about the RIAA, does the GPL try to "use their copyrights to extend their control to [new markets]?" Guess we have to hold our breath and wait.

Re:Set that precident

[lkaos]

It is clear that something is derivative if it "contains" the functionality of something else, but is it Just that the licensing agreement of a minor, or even insignificant, part of the derivative work should dominate the remaining portions?

It's not that the license of a small portion of the work is dominating the work. Rather, it is that the only right one has in redistributing that small portion of code, is if he agrees to all the terms of the license. In this case, the license explicitly states that the rest of the product must also carry the GPL license. It is not that the GPL causes the rest of the product to be under the GPL, but that one has no legal right to be distributing that subcomponent unless the rest of the product is under the GPL.

Many people mistakenly refer to the GPL as viral. That gives the false impression that the GPL 'forces' other products to adopt the license. That is not true though. It's sort of like a software company saying that in order to use a certain library commerically, the library user must pay a certain royality. In this circumstance, that royality is the assurance that the code using the library is also under the GPL.

Re:Set that precident

[taniwha]

But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law?

Well the copyright law basicly gives the copyright holder the right to decide what the license is.

At another level copyright is intended to encourage people to write and publish, certainly GPL encourages this in a way that tends to result in a sort of chain reaction publishing or more source - so I think it results in exactly what the original authors intended in a way that a simple giveaway of a library to the public domain does not

Re:Set that precident

[Munelight]

I'm sure it will be pointed out by others, but really - no one is forcing you to use GPL code in your program. Therefore, if you can't find code with a less restrictive license, or you don't want to cough up the money to get some commercially licensed code, and you don't want to submit to the terms of the GPL, then guess what? You have to write your own code. That GPL code is *not* free. It's there for use in other GPL'ed works and if you don't want to follow the terms of that license, than you just don't use GPL code anywhere. :)

Re:Set that precident

[Frater 219]

For example, if you're writing a program which decodes and formats web pages and you want to include a mechanism for playback of midi files, using a library distributed under the GPL is an impossibility, because even tho it might make up less than 1% of the total code of the product, linking to the library will force the terms of the GPL onto each and every other component. This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law?

Not at all. Under copyright law, you have no right to include my code in your product without my permission. If you use my code without my permission, you're breaking the law. That is the default position from which the GPL (and all other source-code licenses) build.

When I place my code under the GPL, I'm giving you a limited right to copy it and include it in your work -- that is, a right to copy and include it in certain ways, for certain purposes. You don't get the right to include it in a proprietary, closed work. You don't get the right to lie to your customers and say that you wrote the whole thing.

The GPL doesn't create new restrictions upon your "right" to include my code in your product, because the default position under copyright law is that you don't have any such right. If you want to include it, all you need is my permission. The GPL just says "I give you limited permission. I give you permission to include my code in some kinds of products -- namely, GPLed ones. If you want to include my code in non-GPLed ones, you don't (yet) have my permission to do that."

Incidentally, there's no such thing as "violating the GPL." (Well, there is, but it would involve printing it out, rolling it up, and giving it to the goatse.cx guy.) If you include my code in a way that you don't have permission to, you are violating copyright law. It's exactly the same crime as if you included a copy of Microsoft Word in your code.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

Well the copyright law basicly gives the copyright holder the right to decide what the license is.

True, but there are restrictions. For example, I cant put in my license agreement that you may not use my competitors products. This is called "Copyright Misuse" and the representative case is Practice Management Information Corporation v. The American Medical Association. Technically copyright misuse is the use of a copyright to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by copyright law and against public policy. Another example is when a software license says you may only use the software on the copyright holder's hardware. Why? Well, you're using the monopoly granted to you by copyright law to enforce a monopoly in a different market (hardware). So the GPL could fall into this category too. In my example the monopoly granted to the author of the midi library by copyright law does not extend to the market of web browsers.

Re:Set that precident

[einhverfr]

Copyright grants a limited monopoly to an entity for a limited time. But that is still subject to predatory trade laws. So what goes for the RIAA does not go for the FSF.

The FSF is not a commercial entity, and the GPL works in a complex way which actually prevents a derivative work from extending this control-- i.e. if you make a derivative work off my GPL'd software and I want to use your code in my proprietary software, the fact that your code is based on mine doesn't matter, I still need your permission. (This is why Linus can't turn arround and start charging license fees for Linux.)

So anti-trust laws do not apply. Sorry.

But, IANAL.

Re:Set that precident

[Pinball Wizard]

Actually, you can use all the GPL code you want on your web site and never tell anyone.

Its only when you try to package and distribute GPL code that you are required to make the code public and submit any modifications back to its owner.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

I didn't say I somehow had a right to use your code. What I said is that the license you choose to distribute your code under may well have elements in it that are illegal under copyright misuse laws. Neither did I say anything about proprietary closed works. If we're talking about the BSD license and all my code is open then I still cant incorporate your library into my web browser. It's all really a moot point however because unless we have a signed license agreement I'm not going to get any love from the courts.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

That GPL code is *not* free.

Shit, really? Better change the name then.

Re:Set that precident

[VortexVertigo]

Um, you are metaphysically slapping the faces of programmers who use the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that your hard work is used the way you intended. Let's look at this from a business perspective. If I wrote a library for midi playback and sold it for $1 per binary distributed, then my rights to restrict you from using it without paying are clear (I hope). So why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing even if my fee for the library is the sharing of source and not money?

Re:Set that precident

[Chris Burke]

But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law?

That's easy: No. Absolutely not.

"Why?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

Because copyright does not give you the right to create derivative works based on someone else's code and distribute the derivative. It specifically denies that right by reserving it for the creator. The GPL gives you that right -- a right you would not otherwise have -- with a restriction. If you can accept the restriction, you get more rights. If you cannot, your rights are the same as they would be under pure copyright. How could a license which either increases or leaves unchanged your rights possibly be considered "restricting rights beyond the intention of copyright law"? It can't.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

you are metaphysically slapping the faces of programmers who use the GPL

I'm doing no such thing. I'm querying the legality of a license that I use. You should be doing the same.

Re:Set that precident

[VortexVertigo]

If so, then counter my above arguments.

Re:Set that precident

[augustz]

This isn't copyright law extended, but about the nicest version of copyright you'll ever see.

If you don't want to use my code FOR FREE, then you can write your own, otherwise you have to agree to the terms I license it under, which says, anything you link must also be open source. Simple. Folks need to remember that the GPL makes good sense even from a moral standpoint, in addition to a legal one.

Do you even get a CHOICE about using Adobe code? Do you even get to SEE Apple's midi playback mechanisim? Not a chance!

So how in the world does a license which gives you MORE rights then you would EVER have under copyright law, "restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law".

Especially if that license gives you the choice to use the software FOR FREE, to change the source code FOR FREE, to fix bugs, and distribute THOSE changes, FOR FREE, without even having to say thanks, or deal with an army of lawyers.

And folks forget, the license protects you from things like Oracle's stunts, whose license PROHIBITS you from even properly reviewing their product without getting permission from them.

So give us all a break. You should try licensing something that is not under the GPL sometime, you'll be signing a 40 page document that costs a small fortune (literally, source code access costs incredible amounts) that you'll have to hire a lawyer to understand.

Personally, I'll take the CHOICE to deceide what I want to do over no choice at all.

Re:Set that precident

[Anonymous Coward]

So, by the same argument you think you have the right to redistribute any DLL files from windows as long as the are small and only make up 1% of your code?

It's exactly the same situation - you are linking with a couple of useful library routines, and there is absolutely nothing in the license that separates static from dynamic linking.

Or, "I have the right to steal your wallet, because it's only worth 1% of my total fortune"?

Re:Set that precident

[evilviper]

Bull. You are forgetting about fair-use.

If I found a program like 'Netscape' freely available for anyone to download on the internet, is there anything illegial about making a new frontend for it that enhances 'Netscape' (such as Galeon does with Mozilla)? You might say I don't have any right to do that, but it's just not clear if I do or not.

The interesting thing about the GPL is that most projects don't FORCE you to agree to it. If it's found that my above senerio is legal, than it would seem that extending freely available code (where you haven't agreed to any particular license) would fall under fair use as well.

Another pitfall of the GPL, is that you don't have the right to change the pitfalls yourself. If you FORCE me to agree to your license (click through) that only means I'm agreeing to something that explicitly tells me I don't HAVE TO agree to it, and you can't change that legally. Of course, I believe that not allowing you to change the GPL license itself (very un-GNU-ish) violates fair use by itself. (It's just a document, as long as you give credit, it should be perfectly legal.)

The GPL has many problems, and no redeeming factors I can see (It's laughable that people think Microsoft can't embrase and extend GPLed software, even while conforming to the GPL). I'd say just go with BSD and your code will become so standardized that Microsoft won't dare change it (e.g. TCP/IP, IPSec, NFS, HTTP, FTP, et al). Not to mention that projects under different open-source license can finally take advantage of if.

Mind you, if the judgement turns out like I believe it will, I'll be the first downloading all the GPLed software I can, and making it freely downloadable under it's non-binding GPL v2 license!

Re:Set that precident

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue:
The GPL is already in version two since 1991. They are currently trying to make v3.

Your Netscape case is clear: you are not allowed to change the Netscape code if its license does not explicitly grant you the right to do this.

There is no "fair use" clause for changing and distributing source code or binary code. The GPL grants you a right which is different from the default state. If you dont like the terms, then you are not allowed to distribute the software.

Re:Set that precident

[Frater 219]

Bull. You are forgetting about fair-use.

Not at all. You have the same fair-use rights with respect to a work licensed under the GPL that you have with respect to any other work. For instance, you have the right to publish reviews of a GPLed work, to quote briefly from it in doing so, etc. Nonetheless, nothing under fair use can give you the right to distribute someone else's work, whole and entire, as a portion of your own, and without that person's permission. That is what is involved in static linking of a library into a compiled program.

If I found a program like 'Netscape' freely available for anyone to download on the internet, is there anything illegial about making a new frontend for it that enhances 'Netscape' (such as Galeon does with Mozilla)? You might say I don't have any right to do that, but it's just not clear if I do or not.

Naturally, there might be several issues involved in what you propose, since what you propose is unclear, and made less clear by the vagaries of your grammar.

Do you propose, for instance, that you may download a copy of a closed-source program, make modifications to it, and distribute your modified version without the original creator's permission? I disagree; that strikes me as an obvious offense against the author's copyright in the work. A comparable offense would be for to take Frank Herbert's Dune, rewrite the ending, and publish the resulting work without the permission of the Herbert estate (the copyright holder).

By mentioning Netscape, Mozilla, and Galeon in particular you seem to be deliberately blurring the issue. Netscape Navigator is a piece of freely redistributable binary-only software (aka "freeware"), but the copyright holder does not give you permission to distribute derivative works. Mozilla, on the other hand, is a piece of open-source software (aka "free software"), wherein the copyright holder gives you limited permission to distribute derivative works. Galeon, as I understand it, is a legally made derivative work of Mozilla and of the GNOME libraries.

The interesting thing about the GPL is that most projects don't FORCE you to agree to it.

"Agreement to the GPL" is not relevant. The GPL is not a contract or "license agreement" which you may accept or reject. It is a unilateral grant of limited permission. If I place a piece of work of mine under the GPL, I am not proposing a contract to you, nor to the general public. I am granting permission to you and to the general public to do certain things with my work which would otherwise be illegal for you to do. The permission I grant is limited; I am not giving away all of my exclusive rights regarding my work. But I am granting you something (my permission) and I am not asking anything in return.

Yes, you read that right: I am not asking anything from you in return. After all, what would you have to give? It is a common misconception that you are "giving" me your "agreement" to only copy or distribute my work under the terms of the GPL. However, your "agreement" in this regard is not necessary. The GPL is the limit around the permission I have granted you. If you stray beyond its terms when copying my work, then you aren't "violating the GPL" -- you are simply copying and distributing a copyrighted work without its copyright holder's permission. In other words, you're violating copyright law. And by agreeing not to violate the law w.r.t. my works, you certainly wouldn't be giving me anything I didn't already have.

To clarify: When I release a piece of my work under the terms of the GPL (in common parlance, when I "GPL my work") I am not giving you the copyright over my work. That I retain. I am not giving you unlimited permission to copy my work. I am not contracting with you, or proposing a contract. I am simply giving you very carefully limited permission to copy and distribute my work.

Of course, I believe that not allowing you to change the GPL license itself (very un-GNU-ish) violates fair use by itself. (It's just a document, as long as you give credit, it should be perfectly legal.)

I suspect that you do not know what the expression fair use means. It does not mean, and has never meant, "I think my use is fair; therefore, what anybody else thinks does not matter." It means that copyrighted works may be used for certain purposes (namely "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship ... research ... [or] [p]arody" according to chillingeffects.org) without infringing on copyright.

For you to create a derivative work from the GPL (which is a copyrighted work of the FSF) and publish it as a license to your software would not fall into any of those categories. Publishing it as a parody or a critique of the GPL might, I would strongly hope (though I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). But the GPL itself is a copyrighted work, you don't have any right to coöpt the efforts and research of the FSF legal counsel by making knock-offs of the GPL without the copyright holder's permission.

Mind you, if the judgement turns out like I believe it will, I'll be the first downloading all the GPLed software I can, and making it freely downloadable under it's non-binding GPL v2 license!

If you believe that the invalidation of the GPL would allow you to relicense GPLed works under your choice of license, you are deluding yourself. In the absence of the GPL, those works revert to normal copyright protection -- the same as protects Dune and Microsoft Word. If the GPL were ruled invalid, you would be no more justified in distributing copies of GNU Emacs than you would in running off your own print run of Dune.

Re:Set that precident

[mpe]

This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law?

If anything the GPL is one of the few examples of software applying copyright in the way it was intended. Especially in the case of the USA, where the intent of copyright is clearly described in the US constitution.

Re:Set that precident

[Munelight]

As I'm sure you know, I meant free as in free to use as you see fit. You must follow the terms of the license or you have have no right to use the code at all. You're rather contentious, aren't you?

Re:Set that precident

[GooberToo]

People seem to forget that one of the intents to encourage dynamic linking of proprietary components is to ensure that you are never at the mercy of that vender. Should you later decide that you can write the foobar library that your GPL application makes use of, all you need to do is provide your own library and now you have a working copy again which is free of proprietary code.

Basically the concept is this. If you make a reference to someone else's book within your own, that's legal. If on the other hand, you write a new chapter at the beging and end of someone else's book, that's illegal. That's exactly what static linking does.

Dynamic linking should be encouraged where ever possible. It protects the users of GPL and the creators of their respective code.

Re:Set that precident

[The Smith]

If I found a program like 'Netscape' freely available for anyone to download on the internet, is there anything illegial about making a new frontend for it that enhances 'Netscape' (such as Galeon does with Mozilla)?

Depends what you mean by `making a new frontend'. If your front end stands alone, and contains no part of Netscape, then, like Galeon, you're fine. If it is a complete copy of Netscape with a modified front end, then you do need Netscape's permission.

The interesting thing about the GPL is that most projects don't FORCE you to agree to it. If it's found that my above senerio is legal, than it would seem that extending freely available code (where you haven't agreed to any particular license) would fall under fair use as well.

Under copyright law, the default is for no-one but the copyright holder to have any rights to copy, distribute, modify or derive from the program. The GPL sets out the conditions you must agree to if you want to do these things. It is far less restrictive than any proprietary license. In particular, it unconditionally grants all rights to use, copy for personal use, and modify for personal use.

(It's laughable that people think Microsoft can't embrase and extend GPLed software, even while conforming to the GPL).

Given that Microsoft is acting like the GPL is their worst nemesis, I don't think they have any plans to ever try doing this.

Mind you, if the judgement turns out like I believe it will, I'll be the first downloading all the GPLed software I can, and making it freely downloadable under it's non-binding GPL v2 license!

Eh? Most GPLed software is already freely downloadable under the GPL v2 license. But if you mean you plan on writing your own new version of the GPL, then no, you idiot, only the copyright holder can do that.

Re:Set that precident

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because English blows. Other languages have distinct words for the two concepts of free.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

Your analogies do not make an argument, try to think for five minutes, and infact there have been cases where companies sued for unauthorized distribution of small DLL's and lost.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

worst analogy of the year award goes to this man.

Re:Set that precident

[evilviper]

Who's the idiot? I meant, if it's found that the GPL is not enforceable, most GPL software will be removed right away, and replaced with some NEW and much worse license. So I will be happy to host the non-enforcable GPL'ed versions.

Under copyright law, the default is for no-one but the copyright holder to have any rights to copy, distribute, modify or derive from the program.

If it was that simple, we wouldn't need a court case to tell us where we stand. It's still under question. Now stop spouting all the propoganda Stallman taught you...

Re:Set that precident

[evilviper]

I suspect that you do not know what the expression fair use means.

Guess again.

For you to create a derivative work from the GPL (which is a copyrighted work of the FSF) and publish it as a license to your software would not fall into any of those categories.

In papers I have written, I have quoted documents in whole, nearly as legenthy as the GPL itself. Besides, you are reading only want you want to from 'fair use'.

Fair use is far more complex than you take into account. By using it I am not devaluing the copyrighted work, my use would be non-commercial, etc. There are many ways such use would qualify.

You and I both quote each other's writings, even though neither has been granted permission. Why is that legal? It's legal because we don't take credit for the works of each other, we aren't using it commercially, or decreasing the market value of each others work. Considering that the GPL is even more freely available that our comments on slashdot, I don't see how you can claim that I can't claim the same right to use it.

If you believe that the invalidation of the GPL would allow you to relicense GPLed works under your choice of license, you are deluding yourself. In the absence of the GPL, those works revert to normal copyright protection

No, the court doesn't just say "sorry, the GPL is declared invalid". They will say something such as: "the GPL clause of requiring derivitive works is not legal". Which would make GPLed software approximately on the same ground as the BSD license. I wouldn't need to change the license, but I could very well use it with fewer restrictions (provided the court decides as I hope it will).

Re:Set that precident

[Snootch]

I suspect that you do not know what the expression fair use means.

Guess again.

My, that's a full answer, isn't it? Would you care to explain how your definition of Fair Use is in fact the correct one, whereas the version quoted directly from the relevant law is not?


In papers I have written, I have quoted documents in whole, nearly as legenthy [sic] as the GPL itself.

In which case, unless you have gained permission (directly or indirectly) from the copyright holder, you are breaking copyright law. Just because you do it doesn't make it right.

Fair use is far more complex than you take into account. By using it I am not devaluing the copyrighted work, my use would be non-commercial, etc. There are many ways such use would qualify

No there aren't. Go check up the law (follow the link he suggested, chillingeffects.org). There are only a few ways in which something can count as fair use, and the ones you give above are not among them.


No, the court doesn't just say "sorry, the GPL is declared invalid". They will say something such as: "the GPL clause of requiring derivitive works is not legal". Which would make GPLed software approximately on the same ground as the BSD license.

Bull. The GPL states, effectively, "You may make derivative works of this as long as you GPL them." If one part of that demand becomes legally untenable, that does not immediately void all copyright law. If a commercial licence is declared void, it doesn't default to BSD, does it? The "ground state" of a copyrighted work is one of "no distribution, no derivatives, copies for fair use (which is strictly defined) only."

Yes, IANAL, but I can recognise a false syllogism when I see one...

Re:Set that precident

[evilviper]

I think it is a very underhanded tactic to imply that I was evading some issue, by not answering a question that WAS NOT posed by the author I was replying to.

I'm glad you can so very well define 'fair use' while the professionals and experts will admit that they are unsure of it's boundaries.

You've spent a lot of energy essentially saying 'I'm right and you are wrong' while including no support for your claims.

The concept of fair use is necessarily somewhat vague when discussed in the abstract. Its application depends critically on the particular facts of the individual situation. Neither the case law nor the statutory law provides bright lines concerning which uses are fair and which are not.
(http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html)

Your faith in a website that is attempting to dumb down a very complex law is disturbing.

The most indepth and complete reference available that I am aware of is located at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Re:Set that precident

[darkonc]

It's pretty simple: the object code version of the GPLed code is a derivative of the original source. If you distribute that object code attached to a piece of non-GPLed code, you are violating the GPL.

Note when I distribute my code with a piece of GPLed code, my code (by itself) is not the derivative work. It's the GPL object that's the derivative. I can only distribute the GPLed derivative part of the program if my derivative part of the code is also GPLed.

+--grumble--lameness--filter---+
|..larger object module........|
| +-g.um-ble-+ +-gr--um--ble-+ |
| | GPL CODE | | Non-GPL cod | |
| +-g.um-ble-+ +-gr--um--ble-+ |
+--grumble--lameness--filter---+
If you can distribute the larger object module with out distributing the GPL code, then you don't have to worry about violating the GPL. :-)

Re:Set that precident

[darkonc]

[when I grant permission under the GPL] The permission I grant is limited; I am not giving away all of my exclusive rights regarding my work. But I am granting you something (my permission) and I am not asking anything in return. I disagree. When I grant you license under the GPL, what I'm asking in return is that that whatever you distribute my code (or it's derivative) with, is also GPLed. This is not necessarily a trivial 'request'.

As was pointed out: If I write a program that takes 1 million lines of code and want to include your 400 line GPL enhancement, I need to GPL my 1million lines of code to do it -- and that's thw whole intent of the GPL.

Now granted -- if I've already written a million lines of code, it should be (relatively) trivial to write my own version of your GPL code -- but the intent of the GPL is to make it be the other way 'round. -- and that's actually closer to what happened in the MySQL/Nusphere case... They took a couple million lines of code, added a few thousand of their own, and tried to sell it as a proprietary product -- then they got snarky when people called them on it.
WHACK!! Slap 'em on the back of the wrist with a sledge-hammer.

Re:Set that precident

[QuantumG]

I'm getting bored of this thread but anyways. The copyright misuse act says a lot of things but one of the things it says is that you cant use your copyright on a product in one market to leverage control over another market. That's what my example of the web browser and the midi library was about. That didn't fly too well with too many people so I'll give another example.

Another thing the copyright misuse act says is that you cant restrict a licensee from using a competitor's product or developing a competing product. So to use your ascii art (very nice btw) as part of my example, consider that you are creating a paint program. You decide that a critical part of your paint program is going to be colour scaling. You consider colour scaling to be a rather complex task so you decide to use the recognised best colour scaler on the planet, GnuShade (not a real project, but let's just say it's under the GPL ok). Being a good gnu citizen you decide to make your entire paint program GPL'd too. That way everyone can develop it and really you dont think hiding source code is important to making money. You are pro-[open source | free software] and know that your customers are going to pay for your brand recognision. For a number of years you are very successful and sell a lot of your product which really does different stuff to the Gimp and fills a different market in the source-available graphics program world. But things have changed in those few years. GnuShade's development has been lagging and new techniques of colour scaling have come along. Unfortunately they have been developed by a company that does not share your vision of source-available software. Your customers are demanding that you add this proprietory module to your program, but they dont want to give up GnuShade either. What do you do? You could include this proprietory module with your product but then your product couldn't be distributed under the GPL (cause everything must be source-available to comply with it) and if you distribute it under something other than the GPL then you cant include GnuShade with it (for the same reason). There is no way you can distribute GnuShade and this new proprietory colour scaler in the same product which you distribute "as a whole". You might be able to get away with developing some plugin architecture and offering this proprietory module as a free download from your web site, but your customers dont want a free download, they want GnuShade + this proprietory colour scaler to work out of the box as it were. Effectively, the license of GnuShade (the GPL) prevents you from using a competing product because the licenses are incompatable. It could be argued that this is the same as explicitly stating that the license prevents you from using a competitors product. If the only two products in this market are GnuShade and this new proprietory upstart this case is a lot stronger. It could be claimed that effectively the owners of GnuShade are engaging in copyright misuse.

Obviously I think this is a load of horseshit and that's why I didn't mention it in my first post.

no wonder *linux is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is not a good basis for truly free
software. If you want to make it free, then
put as few restrictions on it as you can. See
the latest 2-clause BSD license and contrast
that with the N-page GPL and no wonder BSD is
growing exponentially while *linux is fragmenting
and dying.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[lkaos]

Many people complain that the GPL is not truly free.

That is mainly because of a misconception about what 'free' is. Modern theories of democracy are based on the concept of inalienable rights (see Locke or US Declaration of Independence). Inalienable rights are inherent rights that cannot be abandoned or taken away. For men to be free, they must ensure that these rights exist and are protected (hence, the need for government).

The GPL essentially defines the inalienable rights of software. As men have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or in their possesions if you are more Lockean), software has the right to be modified, redistributed, and derived from.

To simply grant these rights with no mechanism to preserve them would go against the fundamental principles of democracy. The GPL protects software not only from giving up it's fundamental rights.

But, the original author also has the choice under which license to distribute the work. He may choice to abandon certain rights. The important thing though, is that it is his choice and his choice alone.

I'm sorry, one simply cannot make the argument that the GPL is philosophically less 'free' than the BSD license. It's just not true.

BTW: If you consult the Unix History Tree, you will see that BSD is arguably older than Linux (the NetBSD base surely is).

BSD is not growing exponentially and Linux is surely not fragmenting. BSD's growth is also probably more related to the high quality of their operating system and less because of their license.

The BSD license is scary. If I had any intention of releasing my code so that it could be reused commerically without my permission, I would simply put in under the public domain. Of course, I'm not a communist, so there is little chance that I would ever release code in such a way.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. BSD forked off in 1978. Linux forked off in 1991. Yeah, I can see why BSD is "arguably older". By the way, it's somewhat disingenuous to say Linux came out of the UNIX tree because it didn't use any of the code and it's not considered an actual UNIX (by the people in charge of certifying things as UNIX(TM)).

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[AHumbleOpinion]

By the way, it's somewhat disingenuous to say Linux came out of the UNIX tree because it didn't use any of the code ...

It would also be disingenous to say Linux is not unix ((TM) issue addressed later) because files were not copied. Linux is yet another implementation of unix. Minix (academic tool for teaching unix concepts, not intended as a "real" OS) was studied, bsd was studied, ... The reason Linux took off is that people wanted their own version of unix at home and Linux sure as hell delivered.

... and it's not considered an actual UNIX (by the people in charge of certifying things as UNIX(TM)).

That point has little meaning beyond marketing literature and the courtroom. Unix commands work, unix tool/apps compile and run, ... i.e. it quacks like a duck.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[istartedi]

Many people say that American beer is watery. This is mainly because of a misperception of what 'watery' is.

Also, the idea of endowing inamimate objects such as software with rights is ridiculous. What next? Rocks? Trees? People for the Ethical Treatement of Dustballs?

Not only is the GPL not free, but because it contaminates every derivative work, it is a perpetual license that causes its restrictions to extend indefinitely.

How is public domain communistic? Does this mean that my math teacher was a communist because she taught me 2+2 and didn't claim any rights to my future use of this knowledge?

When works return to the public domain, they can be recycled and used under any license. When work enters the GPL, it may never return.

We are witnessing the 1st stage of a classical Liberal elitist plot, similar to the introduction of abortion. When the GPL shuts other software out of the market, we will see a general slowdown of progress in the software market. This will be followed by cries for more government funding of GPL'd software, the passage of laws making it illegal to write proprietary software, and repression every bit as extreme as RMS's "right to read fiction". Think "KNOCK KNOCK. We're here to liberate your source for the glorious people's revolution!" and people furtively agreeing to non-disclosure in back rooms when their business needs to get something done but can't wait for the Ministry of Software to do it.

This scenario, as far fetched as it seems, will play out. It may take 50 more years but it will happen.

I expect every true lover of freedom to rise up and violate the GPL when the time is right.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

The elements of the GPL that differ from free licenses have nothing whatsoever to do with freedom, and everything to do with ego and greed.

If you write code, use code, distribute code without charge then well done. If somebody else then comes along and makes money from your code, also well done. *This does not affect the original authors life in any way at all*.

A philanthropic software author would at this point congratulate his fellow man on getting ahead in the world. A less so person becomes jealous, claiming it is "not fair", because their (at the time volentary) work contributed to the success of another but they did not reap the rewards. Can anyone think of a personal achievement that did not involve contributions from others?

Along with the jealousy comes a feeling of humiliation, because many of the more outspoken unofficial advocates have incredible egos, each believing themselves to be phenomenally intelligent. The idea that somebody else may have a good (money-making) idea which did not occur to them, and having this exposed to their peers is unthinkable.

Hence, the GPL. Protector of geek ego.

But hey, I _am_ a socialist.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"Modern theories of democracy are based on the concept of inalienable rights"

Ehhh... not entirely true. Modern applications of democracy take into account these "inalienable rights." They do this by making sure that there's a mechanism to protect the rights of the individual from the abuses of the majority (which will happen in a true democracy). I think it was Madison that noted that it was a democracy that decreed the hemlock one day and statues the next.

"Inalienable rights are inherent rights that cannot be abandoned or taken away. For men to be free, they must ensure that these rights exist and are protected."

Either they can be taken away or they can't. Pick one.

"To simply grant these rights with no mechanism to preserve them would go against the fundamental principles of democracy. The GPL protects software not only from giving up it's fundamental rights."

Democracy is a pretty name for "mob rule," where the majority always wins over the minority and the individual. The GPL is democratic in the sense that it requires coders to surrender some of their coding rights as an individual (restricting what they can do with the code, even if they've heavily modified it) as they become a part of the group that works on the program (ie. the majority). The GPL protects the rights of the group over that of the individual by more or less forcing the individual to join the group.

"But, the original author also has the choice under which license to distribute the work. He may choice to abandon certain rights. The important thing though, is that it is his choice and his choice alone."

Ah, but who is the author? Isn't somebody that modifies the code and thereby improving it just as much of an author? By enacting the GPL, the original coder declares himself first among equals in the new group of coders that work on the app. The original author then requires that you join this group as a subordinate before you are allowed to make and distribute any modifications.

This more or less denies the existance of derivative works. It's based on the principle that the "original" author wrote the code ex nihilo while the work of anybody else is nothing more than adding to the original idea. Anybody that came along after the code's genesis (literally) is incapable of actually having an original idea (legally if not philosophically). If fire were released under the GPL, Bob the Caveman would get all the credit of the Industrial Revolution.

I personally have difficulty understanding how people can complain about the abuses of US copyright law by the MPAA and RIAA one day and support the GPL the next.

"I'm sorry, one simply cannot make the argument that the GPL is philosophically less 'free' than the BSD license. It's just not true."

It's untrue only so long as you pretend that a group and the individuals that make up that group are one and the same. Psychology and history tell us otherwise.

"BSD is not growing exponentially and Linux is surely not fragmenting."

Linux is growing exponentially because it requires anybody that does anything with the code to become part of the Linux group. BSD has no restrictions, so coders aren't forced to join the BSD camp. Like it or not, the folks that call the GPL "viral licensing" have a point. In this sense the BSD license is more free as it is not forced to grow at such a rate.

"Of course, I'm not a communist, so there is little chance that I would ever release code in such a way."

No, the GPL is the more communistic choice. It is a "coder's paradise," free from the opression of the bourgeois corporations but subject to another aristocracy just the same. Coders are more or less required to unite into one single group and produce as a whole, and any credit from the accomplishments of any single coder is both given to the group as a whole and the original Lenin figure that started the app in the first place. There is no room for the individual here except for the person that applied the GPL to begin with.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

No. GNU commands work, GNU tools/apps compile and run, etc...

They don't use the standardized bits of the UNIX system libraries though. They use the Linux system libraries which aren't directly compatible. There's a reason why GNU has the "not UNIX" bit. You will have some problems if you make UNIX system calls, or expect files to be in the UNIX standard places. Just because they were designed as a "free" replacement doesn't mean they work they same.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Chris Johnson]

What good is an 'individual' capable only of ripping off someone else's work and expanding on it?

How does this make original authors into Lenin?

Of course, I'm biased- I'm an original author under the GPL. so... OFF WITH HIS HEAD! :D

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Chris Johnson]

"people furtively agreeing to non-disclosure in back rooms when their business needs to get something done but can't wait for the Ministry of Software to do it."

*ROFL*

Funny how the whole point of the GPL was to make it literally impossible for anyone to be in such a situation over software code, needing to do something but unable to legally get access to the code...

It's entertaining to watch this sort of talk, but has anyone noticed that some of the anti-GPL crowd are INSANE? furrfu...

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[maxpublic]

The GPL is democratic in the sense that it requires coders to surrender some of their coding rights as an individual (restricting what they can do with the code, even if they've heavily modified it) as they become a part of the group that works on the program (ie. the majority). The GPL protects the rights of the group over that of the individual by more or less forcing the individual to join the group.

Your argument is faulty, to say the least. The GPL requires nothing nor does it force any individual to certain action. If you refuse to comply with the GPL you can simply not use GPL'd code. It's that simple. Write your own if you don't like the GPL.

Your choice, completely free and completely up to you.

As has been pointed out time and again, normal copyright gives you no right to use someone else's code. None. Nada. Zip. If it belongs to someone else you're out of luck unless you can contact the author and negotiate a license. If the author says no then you are out of luck. You have no recourse.

The GPL extends your rights in that it allows you to use the code without specific permission of the author so long as you abide by the terms of the GPL. You are granted additional rights which normal copyright doesn't encompass.

But again, if you find the GPL not to your liking you have every right not to use GPL'd code. You can simply write your own and be done with it.

Whining about the GPL, saying that it 'forces' you into something, is deceptive at best. People who insist that the GPL injures them in some fashion are those that want to use GPL'd code rather than write their own, but don't wish to abide by the license. Either they're too lazy or too stupid to do the job themselves, or they too cheap to pay royalties for non-GPL'd code which would fit the bill.

No one has the right to complain about the licensing terms of the GPL when they are never under any obligation to incorporate GPL'd code into their own product. What these morons need to do is either improve their work incentive and write their own code, or admit that they're idiots incapable of coding whatever it is they wish to steal for their own product.

Max

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Cadrach]

When works return to the public domain, they can be recycled and used under any license. When work enters the GPL, it may never return.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't works covered under the GPL enter the public domain at exactly the same time as those works that were kept completely proprietary? The copyrights on both will end at the same time (assuming that they started at the same time and that congress ever allows a copyright to expire again).

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Secret Coward]

Isn't somebody that modifies the code and thereby improving it just as much of an author?

Yes. And they can release their code under any license they want (however useless their minor changes may be). However, if they distribute their code with the original author's code, then they must also license their code under the GPL. If they don't like this restriction, they can either start from scratch with their own gall darn code, or wait for the copyright to expire. Note that with closed source software, the latter choice is not even an option.

By enacting the GPL, the original coder declares himself first among equals in the new group of coders that work on the app. The original author then requires that you join this group as a subordinate before you are allowed to make and distribute any modifications.

If the group does not like the original author's license, they can rewrite the original author's code and license the new product under any license they choose.

Linux is growing exponentially because it requires anybody that does anything with the code to become part of the Linux group.

Linux is growing exponentially because people can contribute knowing that their code can not be 'hijacked'. As I noted above, if people who modified the code didn't like the GPL, they could dual license their portion of the code under both the GPL and BSD licenses.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"Your choice, completely free and completely up to you."

The same can be said of any copyright.

"As has been pointed out time and again, normal copyright gives you no right to use someone else's code."

Just because copyright holders have been working to infringe upon those rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist. A normal copyright gives the purchaser several rights that fall under "fair use," such as being able to make an archival copy or to quote passages of it in your own derivative work. Anybody that's ever had to write a paper for class has exercised these rights.

However, the GPL does not allow such fair uses and it essentially declares any derivative works the IP of the original's author. If a book were GPLed, then any paper I write after reading that book becomes the IP of the book's author and by not including a copy of the book with my paper I'd be comitting plagiarism, no matter how accurate my bibliography may be.

"But again, if you find the GPL not to your liking you have every right not to use GPL'd code. You can simply write your own and be done with it."

Upon looking at the GPL it's not clear that any such choice exists if I even glance at some GPL code.

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

"Derivative works" is a very broad title.

"Whining about the GPL, saying that it 'forces' you into something, is deceptive at best. People who insist that the GPL injures them in some fashion are those that want to use GPL'd code rather than write their own, but don't wish to abide by the license."

Thank you for agreeing with my point that the GPL assumes ex nihilo programming on the part of the original author. After all, the original author doesn't need to include references and copies of any and every programming book, course, website, FAQ, howto, etc. that they may have glanced at before writing this code.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"Yes. And they can release their code under any license they want (however useless their minor changes may be)."

No, they can't.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

...

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Derivative works must also be GPLed, thereby essentially making them the IP of the original author.

"If they don't like this restriction, they can either start from scratch with their own gall darn code,"

So you agree that all programming takes place in a vacuum?

"If the group does not like the original author's license, they can rewrite the original author's code and license the new product under any license they choose."

I refer back to my previous blockquote of the GPL.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[lkaos]

Ehhh... not entirely true. Modern applications of democracy take into account these "inalienable rights." They do this by making sure that there's a mechanism to protect the rights of the individual from the abuses of the majority (which will happen in a true democracy). I think it was Madison that noted that it was a democracy that decreed the hemlock one day and statues the next.

If one examines Athenian democracy over Lockean democracy, the biggest difference is in the provision for 'inalienable rights' made possible by natural law. This is what protects the minority from the multi-headed snake of democracy that Plato was so scared of.

Democracy is a pretty name for "mob rule," where the majority always wins over the minority and the individual.

This is not true. That's why 'inalienable rights' are so important. The majoritian makes a decision but that decision must be guided by the natural law. It's also not really 'mob rule' because the minority consents to be ruled. As I believe Rosseau said, A vote in democracy is a vote for the will of the majority.

Ah, but who is the author? Isn't somebody that modifies the code and thereby improving it just as much of an author?

If you build a car, and then I come along and put a sticker on the car, can I then claim that I own the car? Absolutely not. I may own the stick (or the derivation), but I surely do not own the car and do not have any specific rights to the car.

This more or less denies the existance of derivative works.

In a derivative work, the author only has rights to the derivation of that work. With the GPL, an individual can release a patch to a GPL'd piece of software under any license he chooses. To integrate that patch with the original work though, the patch must be Free Software.

In this sense the BSD license is more free as it is not forced to grow at such a rate.

If I write a piece of software, and release it under the GPL. Then for the rest of time, I know that software will be free.

If I write a piece of software, and release it under the BSD license, then another company can come by and rerelease the software with absolutely no freedom for the user to modify the software.

It would really suck if I wrote a piece of software, saw it being used by some company, and then asked to have the source for it and they said no. That is why Linux is growing. It's about preserving individual freedom; my freedom as a programmer to use my own source code.

Simply giving code away to become property of society is communistic. If I write code, it should be my property. The nice thing about the GPL is that even though it allows me to own a piece of software, it stops me from being able to remove freedoms already bestowed on the software.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[cHiphead]

When works return to the public domain, they can be recycled and used under any license

Perhaps I'm confused, but isn't public domain, PUBLIC DOMAIN. You mean to tell me that in 50,000 years when disney's © stuff enters the public domain, I can take it, republish it, and sue the hell out of anybody that uses it? The logic of the above statement seems to indicate that is perfectly possible. Sorry, but thats not what public domain is for. Public domain is for open, free access to the information without restriction. Aka, the real GPL License (and the PURPOSE of the GPL in the first place.)

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[lkaos]

Also, the idea of endowing inamimate objects such as software with rights is ridiculous. What next? Rocks? Trees? People for the Ethical Treatement of Dustballs?

The philosophy of Free Software and hence the GPL is derived from the idea that software is an expression of speech. We all would agree that speech does have certain freedoms.

How is public domain communistic? Does this mean that my math teacher was a communist because she taught me 2+2 and didn't claim any rights to my future use of this knowledge?

2+2 is _not_ public domain. Do you have any right whatsoever to try and sell someone 2+2 as a licensed work? Not at all. A copyright can not be enforced on something if it can be proved that the work originated prior to the copyright claim.

Now a days, people to copyright equations though and I only wished they put them under a similiar license to the GPL. If 2+2 was GPL'd, then all the equations derived from that would also be GPL'd and we could excel so much faster as a society because information would be free.

The pharmacy industry is a good example of what too much restriction does. If all the AIDS researchers out there pooled their efforts, we would have a cure for AIDS. Every company though is building from the ground up and a huge amount of duplicate effort is being undertook. Because of this, the market is limited to huge mega-corporations that can afford to expend the required resources to do what has already been done.

We are witnessing the 1st stage of a classical Liberal elitist plot, similar to the introduction of abortion.

*sigh*

You can't actually believe this can you?

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[lkaos]

Yeah but the modern BSDs that I most /. folks refer to when speaking of BSD (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD) didn't fork until 1991. (NetBSD forked of the BSDLite branch I believe).

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"As I believe Rosseau said, A vote in democracy is a vote for the will of the majority."

And what about people who abstain from voting?

"If you build a car, and then I come along and put a sticker on the car, can I then claim that I own the car? Absolutely not. I may own the stick (or the derivation), but I surely do not own the car and do not have any specific rights to the car."

Under the GPL, the car manufacturer owns the sticker.

Let's say you build a car and I buy it. I then modify the engine or replace it outright. Under the GPL, that modification would then be your modification and I would not be free to make a profit from modifying such cars.

"In a derivative work, the author only has rights to the derivation of that work. With the GPL, an individual can release a patch to a GPL'd piece of software under any license he chooses."

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

You can't release a patch without some knowledge of what your patching. I can't see how a patch isn't "derived from the Program or any part thereof."

"If I write a piece of software, and release it under the BSD license, then another company can come by and rerelease the software with absolutely no freedom for the user to modify the software."

But under the BSD license the end user must be made aware of any BSD code used in the product. If you're using IE, click on "About Internet Explorer" and notice what it says about Mosaic. And since the end user must be informed of what the for-profit work is derived from, they are able to get the original BSDed work and make their own derivations.

If Mosaic were GPLed instead of BSDed, just about every browser out there today would be forced to comply with Mosaic's license, no matter how far removed modern browsers may be. The software is free only by your definition of "free" and you require that all future users of that code to comply with your definition. The end user is not free to decided how free they want to be.

"It would really suck if I wrote a piece of software, saw it being used by some company, and then asked to have the source for it and they said no."

Why should you have a "right" to see what they've done with your code and to dictate the licensing terms their modifications can be released under?

And if you wrote some code after reading a book on programming, should the author of that book have the same right to demand your sourcecode and require that a copy of their book be distributed with "your" code? Since you are using what you learned in the author's book, should the author have the ability to dictate the terms of your license? Under GPL's philosophy the answer is "yes."

"Simply giving code away to become property of society is communistic."

Public domain is not the same as public property. If it were, private individuals wouldn't be able to use it however they wish for their own profit. Especially not in a communistic system.

"If I write code, it should be my property."

And the GPL dictates that anything done with your property is again your property. If you GPLed a do-while loop, you would then have the ability to dictate licensing terms to anybody who uses that loop.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[orcrist]

Just because copyright holders have been working to infringe upon those rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist. A normal copyright gives the purchaser several rights that fall under "fair use," such as being able to make an archival copy or to quote passages of it in your own derivative work. Anybody that's ever had to write a paper for class has exercised these rights.

Oh come on! I'm not even a GPL fanatic, but even I see the fallacy in your argument. GPL is a license to copy.

The GPL on GPL-ed software doesn't apply to any use of the software at all. Archival copy? No Problem. Quoting passages? Go ahead, there are plenty of Non-GPL books which quote from GPL-ed Software. As long as your use truly falls under fair use, the GPL doesn't even come into effect.

Once More: The GPL is a license to copy the software beyond that which is allowed by law. It is not a click-through license, because it isn't even close to restricting your use (or fair use). It is just a pre-approved license which saves you the trouble of contacting the author for permission to copy his work in those cases where you are willing to make your derivative work GPL. Don't forget: If the GPL isn't there. You have to contact him. If you did, and he said "no, you can't use it" would you be up in arms? Then why is even noteworthy when it's more like:

Author: "Well, what do want to use it for?"
You: "I want to sell my program with a restrictive license and make gobs of money!" Him: "No, you can't copy my work."
or
You: "I want to make my program GPL"
Author: "Well that sounds okay, send your lawyer over so we can write up a contract which allows you to copy my work into that program, as long as it's availabe under GPL"
...
only without the lawyer and the wait.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[lkaos]

And what about people who abstain from voting?

He also believed that the worst thing an individual could do is refrane from voting. If the person disagrees with the will of the majority, then they are free to leave and are not bound by the will any longer.

Under the GPL, the car manufacturer owns the sticker.

Absolutely not true. If I write a piece of code, release it under the GPL, and then someone modifies it, I have no more rights to the derived product than anyone else does. The manufacturer and the sticker guy have equal rights to the derived product, but each own their respective part of the derived product.

You can't release a patch without some knowledge of what your patching. I can't see how a patch isn't "derived from the Program or any part thereof."

You can not distribute part of the derived product no matter how small unless you are in total ownership of it. This is precisely how companies are able to release binary kernel modules for Linux under whatever license they choose. They simply can not distribute a version of the kernel with those binary modules already included.

The end user is not free to decided how free they want to be.

The end-user is free to use the software in anyway they wish as long as they do not infringe on the inherent freedoms of the software (see 'inalienable rights').

It is truly that simply.

Public domain is not the same as public property.

Sure it is. All individuals have equal rights to the copyright of a work in public domain. In communism, all individuals have equal rights to the items produced by society. Public domain == communism.

And the GPL dictates that anything done with your property is again your property.

In fact, your logic is terribly wrong here. If this were true, then Linus Trovalds would own the entire Linux kernel. The fact of the matter is, Linux has as much rights to the Linux kernel as I do.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

No. GNU commands work, GNU tools/apps compile and run, etc...

No, GNU is merely a subset of what tends to work. Much unix knowledge and code transfers to Linux as well or better than it transfers to other official unix platforms.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[mOdQuArK!]

However, the GPL does not allow such fair uses and it essentially declares any derivative works the IP of the original's author.

Both of these points are false. Anyone is free to make archival copies of a GPLed work, or quote relevant passages of the source code for commentary purposes. The limited permissions of the GPL only apply to the distribution of the work.

Furthermore, if someone creates a derivative work from a GPLed work, then the original author can't claim the entire derivative work as their own IP. The work becomes the communal IP of ALL of the authors who have contributed something to the work.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[mOdQuArK!]

Derivative works must also be GPLed, thereby essentially making them the IP of the original author.

Incorrect. They become the communal IP of all the authors.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"Incorrect. They become the communal IP of all the authors."

Let me pick my jaw up off the floor...

First off, my point here is that those that come after the original author have no other option but to release their work as "communal property." It doesn't matter how small a part the original work plays in the derivative, there is no other legal option but this "communal property.

Secondly, the whole idea of "intellectual property" is that whoever has the legal right to control distribution "owns" the IP in question. Under the GPL the original author is the only person that can have any say in both the original work and whatever the original work is used in. Call it "communal property" or whatever other pretty name you can think of, the original author is the de facto IP owner in all cases.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"GPL is a license to copy."

No, it's a license to use and distribute. It spells out what you must and mustn't do if you want to use or distribute the code in any way, shape or form.

"Quoting passages? Go ahead, there are plenty of Non-GPL books which quote from GPL-ed Software."

First off, just because the example you used hasn't been tested to see if it complies with the GPL doesn't mean the GPL allows it. "Any work" is vague enough to cover books.

Secondly, many people have made the argument that code is speech. What if I copied a block of code from a GPL program (however short) and used it in my own program? Is it different because that's an actual program? What if don't actually compile it but instead publish it in a paper book? Or take a photograph of the code? Haiku? What if I start listing off all the examples that have been used in the DeCSS argument?

Either speech and code have the same legal status or they don't. Period. The GPL just says "any work."

"As long as your use truly falls under fair use, the GPL doesn't even come into effect."

The purpose of a software license (any license) is to restrict use and distribution more than copyright law alone. This includes even the BSD license.

"The GPL is a license to copy the software beyond that which is allowed by law."

No, it is a restriction beyond that of copyright law.

I can copy short passages of a non-licensed copyrighted work and distribute it however I wish so long as credit for the work is given to the copyright's owner (I can't plagiarise). I can sell my work however I wish and not have to pay any royalties.

However, as soon as I put any part of a GPLed work into mine, the GPL comes into effect and restricts my ability to decide distribution to only those allowed by the original author. In fact, the GPL is broad enough that even if I don't use the code but simply become inspired after looking at it my work must then be GPLed (far and away beyond what the original author can dictate under plain old copyright).

"Don't forget: If the GPL isn't there. You have to contact him."

Not if what you're doing falls into the category of "fair use" it doesn't. And derivative works are allowed under fair use.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"or quote relevant passages of the source code for commentary purposes."

It says "any derivative work." I see no exceptions spelled out for commentary.

"The limited permissions of the GPL only apply to the distribution of the work."

Or of "any derivative work."

"The work becomes the communal IP of ALL of the authors who have contributed something to the work."

Intellectual property is considered property because only the owner can control the use and distribution. If anybody could use and distribute the information at whim, it wouldn't be property at all.

The only person that can dictate the terms of use and distribution of both the original GPLed work as well as any derivative work is the original author. By exercising their choice to release the original code under the GPL, the author is not only controlling the use and distribution of the original code but also any code that might be derived from it in the future. Because the control of distribution and use rests with the original author, the original author becomes the de facto IP owner of everything you call "communal property."

The fallacy of "communal property" comes into it becuase later coders can decide either to code under the GPL or don't code at all, and people pretend this somehow an example of the community deciding how the work is distributed.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"If the person disagrees with the will of the majority, then they are free to leave and are not bound by the will any longer."

"Love it or leave it?" And what if the majority's will is to follow this individual and make sure that their rules apply? Arguably this is what happened to British colonists in America, and they ended up choosing option C.

"If I write a piece of code, release it under the GPL, and then someone modifies it, I have no more rights to the derived product than anyone else does."

You have the right to dictate the terms of use and distribution of the derivative and exercised this right when you originally applied the GPL to the work. If you're the one that controls the use and distribution of a work, you are the owner of that IP. That's the definition of intellectual property. What you decide are the terms of use and distribution isn't as important as the fact that you were the one that decided it and could decide it.

OK, I'm having trouble understanding this paragraph:

"You can not distribute part of the derived product no matter how small unless you are in total ownership of it. This is precisely how companies are able to release binary kernel modules for Linux under whatever license they choose. They simply can not distribute a version of the kernel with those binary modules already included."

The GPL says that "any derivative work" of a GPLed work must itself be GPLed. I still don't see how a patch doesn't fit into the category of "any derivative work," even if the patch's authors treated the kernel as a black box. And if it fits into that category, the patch's author is legally required to distribute the patch under the terms of the GPL. Whether actual companies do this or not is something else entirely...

"The end-user is free to use the software in anyway they wish as long as they do not infringe on the inherent freedoms of the software (see 'inalienable rights')."

So being able to decide how your work is used and distributed isn't an "inalienable right?" Or is it only an inalienable right if you somehow wrote your program in a vacuum?

"All individuals have equal rights to the copyright of a work in public domain."

A copyright gives the IP owner the ability to restrict a work's use and distribution. Public domain has no restrictions on its use or distribution at all. If nobody can control a work's use or distribution (requirements for the defintion of IP), then nobody can be said to actually own it.

"In communism, all individuals have equal rights to the items produced by society. Public domain == communism."

Public property means that it is the public that dictates the use of that property. Generally, everybody can access it and use it so long as it doesn't infringe upon the ability of anybody else to use it. The usual example of public property is a park. The public will not allow you to run a slash-and-burn logging operation in a public park.

Public domain on the other hand is something that nobody can restrict the use of, not even the public. It's as if everybody had their own private copy of that something to do with as they please. Instead of public parks everybody has their own back yard. The only really "tangible" example I can think of here is sunlight; not even the public can dictate what can and can't be done with it.

Public domain isn't public property because public domain isn't property. If anything it's one of those inalienable rights you mention.

"If this were true, then Linus Trovalds would own the entire Linux kernel. The fact of the matter is, Linux has as much rights to the Linux kernel as I do."

But he does own the entire kernel. He is the only one that has any say in the kernel's use and distribution. Only he had the ability to GPL the work or not. Not you, not I, not Stallman.

Going back to the car analogy, just because I let you borrow my car every time you ask for as long as you want doesn't also somehow make it your property as well.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[J. Random Software]

But he does own the entire kernel. He is the only one that has any say in the kernel's use and distribution. Only he had the ability to GPL the work or not. Not you, not I, not Stallman.

So many people have contributed so much to Linux that Linus only holds the copyright to a portion of the overall codebase--the rest he can only redistribute under the terms of the GPL. If he tried to ship a proprietary Linux kernel binary, he'd have to request a special license to do so from every contributor or remove their code lest he violate hundreds of copyright holders' right to the code in "his" kernel.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[mOdQuArK!]

The only person that can dictate the terms of use and distribution of both the original GPLed work as well as any derivative work is the original author.

The only person I've talked to who uses this interpretation of the GPL is _you_; one would think that you decided to interpret it to bolster your own argument.

I doubt you'll ever admit to believing that the GPL says anything different than what you've said, but you should read the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html to see what the people responsible for AUTHORING the license think it means. In particular, the section at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Consider covers the situation you've been talking about.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"The only person I've talked to who uses this interpretation of the GPL is _you_; one would think that you decided to interpret it to bolster your own argument."

As are you. Or anybody else in this discussion. Instead of trying to belittle my interpretation based on my minority standpoint you should try finding actual flaws in my interpretation. Being part of the majority doens't make you right by default.

"In particular, the section at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Consider covers the situation you've been talking about."

Here's what it says:

Consider this situation:
X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1.
X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license.
Does X need Y's permission?

Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license.

First off, note that there still isn't mention of Y's ability to change license, with or without X's permission. Of course, Y has no right to change the license since the GPL is essentially a "no" response to everybody.

Secondly, X was the only person who had the option of unilaterally applying the GPL (or any other license) to the project to begin with. Y had only two options: GPL or don't code.

And elsewhere from the FAQ you sent me to:

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"So many people have contributed so much to Linux that Linus only holds the copyright to a portion of the overall codebase"

The GPL is more restrictive than copyright so the copyrights are moot.

"If he tried to ship a proprietary Linux kernel binary, he'd have to request a special license to do so from every contributor or remove their code lest he violate hundreds of copyright holders' right to the code in "his" kernel."

Linus was the only person who had the ability to choose what kind of license (if any) to release his code under. Everybody else afterward had their options limited to "GPL or don't code" by Linus' decision.

And while Linus may have to ask permission to release the kernel under a different license, only Linus has the right to change his mind in the first place. The act of choosing the GPL over some other license is telling everybody else afterwards that they cannot release the code under a different license.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[J. Random Software]

The GPL is only a license to do things copyright law forbids. You can make fair use of the code without complying with the GPL.

Everyone else had their options limited to "don't derive from Linux code" or "let others derive from your code the same way you're allowed to derive from Linux code". The moment he started accepting GPL'd contributions, he lost the right to unilaterally change his mind, and he'll have to rip out everyone else's code to get that right back. Note that anyone else could do the same by ripping Linus' code out of their fork--he really has no special legal standing (except the trademark, which doesn't affect how code may be licensed).

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"You can make fair use of the code without complying with the GPL."

Fair use includes such things as making a derived work. The GPL restricts derived works. The GPL is more restrictive than copyright law.

"he lost the right to unilaterally change his mind, and he'll have to rip out everyone else's code to get that right back."

He has the ability to both ask permission from others to change the license and/or rip out all that other code. However, he still has the ability to change his mind. Nobody else has that ability. They can't rip out Linus' code because it will always be a derived work. They can't ask for Linus' permission because he already said "no" by applying the GPL in the first place.

" Note that anyone else could do the same by ripping Linus' code out of their fork--he really has no special legal standing"

They can fork it all they want, but it must always be GPLed. Even if they do rip out all of Linus' work, the fork is still a derived work from the original. Again, GPL is more restrictive than copyright.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[mOdQuArK!]

As are you. Or anybody else in this discussion. Instead of trying to belittle my interpretation based on my minority standpoint you should try finding actual flaws in my interpretation.

I have been. You've just been consistently ignoring anything I say, fact or opinion.

First off, note that there still isn't mention of Y's ability to change license, with or without X's permission. Of course, Y has no right to change the license since the GPL is essentially a "no" response to everybody.

That quote from the FAQ covers the reverse application of the GPL - how the GPL exerts control over the original author when somebody besides the original author contributes changes, counter to your original argument that the original author had complete control over the all derivate works. Whether Y can change the license or not is a normal "forward" application of the GPL - Y can change the license if he/she gets the permission of the other authors of the work, just like the original author X.

Secondly, X was the only person who had the option of unilaterally applying the GPL (or any other license) to the project to begin with.

What's your point? That's what the GPL is _supposed_ to do; if the original author doesn't want people to use his/her work without returning those contributions to the community, then she/he uses the GPL. If the original author doesn't really care about it, then they can use some other license.

Y had only two options: GPL or don't code.

Incorrect. 4 choices: don't code, code everything themselves & release under a license of their choice, or use the GPL code and release under the GPL, or get permission of all of the authors of the GPLed work to let the license be changed. The last choice, of course becomes more difficult as many different authors start contributing to a particular project (essentially forcing that derivative to become community property).

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[Guppy06]

"That quote from the FAQ covers the reverse application of the GPL - how the GPL exerts control over the original author when somebody besides the original author contributes changes, counter to your original argument that the original author had complete control over the all derivate works."

I never said the original author had complete control. I said the original author has more control over it than anybody else. The original author was the one that was able to dictate not only the license for their own work but also the work of anybody else that uses it.

"code everything themselves & release under a license of their choice"

What part of "derived work" are you having trouble with? If you only think of making a shiney new program after looking at a GPLed example, it is a derived work and must be GPLed.

Simple example: Elements of Star Wars (ANH through ROTJ) were inspired by Le Morte d'Arthur. Nobody in the movie is named Arthur. The Merlin figure isn't named Merlin. The roles of the father and the son are reversed. But the fact remains that those three movies are a derived work of Le Morte d'Arthur (as well as all the other mythologies Lucas borrowed from). If Le Morte d'Arthur were GPLed, Star Wars would have to be GPLed.

Re:no wonder *linux is dying

[mOdQuArK!]

What part of "derived work" are you having trouble with? If you only think of making a shiney new program after looking at a GPLed example, it is a derived work and must be GPLed.

What part of "common sense" are you having trouble with? If you examine a GPLed program, create a spec based on its functionality, then write a complete application to that spec without referring to the original source code, then no rational engineer (even RMS!) is going to insist that you GPL the results. As long as you don't cut & paste any of the original code into your newly-created code, you're fine.

I can tell you _really_ want to have a reason to diss the GPL, but don't go making up problems where none exist.

There is...

[Daniel Wood]

a simple solution to your hypothesized situation. Find a midi program released under the BSD license.

Re:There is...

[QuantumG]

Oh thank you for your fantastic insight.

Re:There is...

[jspaleta]

and there is another solution...find a piece of closed source code and pay to license it...oh you want your lunch for free?

Once you go looking for proprietary code to pay for and starting reading the license agreements...the simplicy and openness of the GPL gains some context. If you need to write a closed source program and you dont want to write all your own code...BUY a license for another piece of closed source work...pay someone to write it for you...find a BSD licensed code...find public domain code...but don't use the GPL code. You can cry all you want but there is nothing wrong with demanding that GPL works can not be incorporated into nonGPL works as part of the license. If it comes down to an unspecificness of the wording...the GPL will be updated so the legalese fits the intent...but the intent behind what is written in the GPL is perfectly valid as a license agreement as a limit to how one can redistribute it. If you don't like it...don't use GPL code.

You have choices...unlike the music business..the code authoring business there is a viable competitive market. You actually have choices when figuring out how to get code written to do a specific task (unless its a patented process).

-jef

Re:There is...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you give someone your lunch for free, you're out a lunch. If you give someone your code for free, you've still got a copy. I thought information wanted to be free? Liberate source from its GPL containment!

Re:There is...

[tchuladdiass]

Or, better yet, put some wrapper code around the library in question to turn it into a server process. Then have your program launch it and make socket calls to it. The only part you'd have to gpl then would be your mods to turn it into a server process. Would this work?

Re:There is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would, but you would have to provide a separate package for the wrapper calls that was completely open, and your closed package would only run on systems where this was installed.

Further, the client-server model would add a lot of overhead, so it would only be viable for calls that are not made often and not part of your program's core functionality.

In essence, things that aren't really important parts of your program, so there's no problem with separating it.

More About the Suit

[Eppie]

The press release does not have much info on what the suit is actually about. Here are some links to explain the dispute:

• MySQL FAQ about the dispute
• Eben Moglen's affidavit, which very clearly lays out MySQL's side of things

I couldn't find any propaganda on the Nusphere site. I guess they're downplaying the story.

Re:More About the Suit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely there's nobody left at NuSphere to update the webpage as I'd heard most of the company has been laid off.

Potato Potato

[QuantumG]

Try to extract the logic here: if you want to use the library then you have to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL. Therefore you are "forced" to distribute every other component under the GPL if you want to use the library. If you dont like the word "forced" then dont use it, but the word "viral" is perfectly accurate to describe this portion of the GPL (hell, even RMS uses it). And no, it's not the same as "the user must pay a certain royality" and that was the entire point of my post.

Re:Potato Potato

[dinivin]

If you dont like the word "forced" then dont use it, but the word "viral" is perfectly accurate to describe this portion of the GPL

Bull... If it were truly viral, it would infect your code, even if you didn't want it to. As it is, the only way for the GPL to take affect is if the author of the code decides for it to.

Dinivin

Re:Potato Potato

[lkaos]

if you want to use the library then you have to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL.

Agreed.

Therefore you are "forced" to distribute every other component under the GPL if you want to use the library.

Well, then you must agree that in order to use Windows, I am "forced" to pay Microsoft money. Or that in order to drive a car, I am "forced" to buy gas and therefore support Middle Eastern governments.

Force as defined by Websters dictionary is:

Force \Force\, v. t.

To obtain or win by strength; to take by violence or struggle; specifically, to capture by assault; to storm, as a fortress.

I hate to be a prick about it, but obviously, forced is not the right word for this situation. Choose is a better word to use. Your logic is better written as:

if you choose to use the library then you have to also choose to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL.

It's a mutual decision. It's like if I choose to have sex, I also have to choose to take the responsibility of also getting a woman pregant.

There is a significant difference between making a choice and being forced into something.

Re:Potato Potato

[QuantumG]

Clearly force is the issue. It's not called copyright law for nothing. You're not forced to use the library, but if you use the library then you are forced to GPL the other components. If I dont GPL the other components then the force of the court will come down on me, just as it is coming down on NuSphere now. Force is always the right word when refering to law.

Re:Potato Potato

[einhverfr]

Try to extract the logic here: if you want to use the library then you have to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL. Therefore you are "forced" to distribute every other component under the GPL if you want to use the library. If you dont like the word "forced" then dont use it, but the word "viral" is perfectly accurate to describe this portion of the GPL (hell, even RMS uses it). And no, it's not the same as "the user must pay a certain royality" and that was the entire point of my post.

Not at all different. In neither case do you have the right to redistribute the copyrighted work in whole or part without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL simply forms a contract between the developer of one portion of the code and the developer that wants to include the code.

If the GPL were viral, the second developer would essentially be signing their rights back to the first developer, which is not the case. If you use my code in your project and have to use the GPL to do it, I am unable to use your code in my proprietary project-- you still maintiain the rights to your code.

Re:Potato Potato

[QuantumG]

There's shades of virality now? Fine, it's not virus by your definition, happy?

Re:Potato Potato

[Shimmer]

There are plenty of viruses that require positive action by the victim. For example, you might take a look at the Melissa virus.

-- Brian

Re:Potato Potato

[Chris Burke]

I'd be more interested in your definition of virus by which it is.

Re:Potato Potato

[lkaos]

If I dont GPL the other components then the force of the court will come down on me

That just paints an interesting mental picture :)

You're not forced to use the library, but if you use the library then you are forced to GPL the other components.

The force you speak of is nullified by the 'if' qualification to your argument. You cannot choose to be forced into something. Choosed force is an oxymoron by nature.

It's simply social contract theory. Government is not forced on an individual. An individual chooses to be governed in a state in exchange for protection from the government. The individual foregoes certain rights in exchange for that protection.

Likewise, you choice to obey the laws of a land and endure the punishments when broken. It's absolutely a choice.

Though, to simply argue a single word is utterly pointless given the inherent ambiguity of the English language.

Re:Potato Potato

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Government is not forced on an individual. An individual chooses to be governed in a state in exchange for protection from the government.

All our Libertarian friends must be smiling at that. You probably meant "protection by the government". :)

Re:Potato Potato

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest its more viral in the biologic sense, since its license terms become the license terms for the rest of the code. In a similar way to the way that a virus places it genetic material in the DNA forcing the cell to reproduce the virus.

Re:Potato Potato

[blakestah]

if you want to use the library then you have to distribute every other component of your product under the GPL. Therefore you are "forced" to distribute every other component under the GPL if you want to use the library.

I think this is clearly the point of contention. Does the use of a library make a program a derivative work ?

Remember, functionality is not copyrightable - only the specific expression in the source code is. So, for starters, if multiple libraries provide the same functionality, linking to a library does not make something a derivative work. This is a concept of a fixed boundary in copyright. The API is defined, there are multiple ways to fulfill that API, so whatever does fulfill that API does not turn the linking program into a derivative work (more specifically - it doesn't require any specific expression to work - because multiple expressions exist that allow it to work).

So, it is 100% possible to link to a GPL'd program and not be open source and not violate the GPL. There are other issues though.

If a library is unique, then it becomes a murky area as to whether a calling program is a derivative.

If a library is staticly linked, another gray area.

These are some of the things the court will sort out. However, I would not be surprised if the court finds in general that any linking to GPLd libraries does not make something a derivative.

After all, the intended purpose of a library is to have something link to it using a public API. Therefore, it seems silly to make anything that does that a derivative. However, you could argue that any program can be turned into a library, so that using the intent of making something a library may not be good either.

In any case, it should get interesting.

Re:Potato Potato

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, it is 100% possible to link to a GPL'd program and not be open source and not violate the GPL

No, not if you distribute the binary. If you are linking to MY library routines for which I hold the copyright, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to redistribute my copyrighted work, unless you follow the conditions in the GPL.

The LGPL licence allows linking without distributing your source, but not the GPL.

Heck, do you think you have the right to distribute all the *.DLL files in microsoft windows just because Apple, Linux and other systems also implement similar library calls?

Re:Potato Potato

[grahammm]

Yet, for linking to a library, you do not have to distribute the binary. When (dynamically) linking to library 'X' to provide functionality 'Y', there are (at least) 2 ways of looking at it. You could say that this makes your program a derivative of 'X'. Or you could say that 'X' is an extension to the operating system, which adds functionality 'Y', and that in order to run your program the user has to have enhanced his/her operating system by installing 'X'.

Re:Potato Potato

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a mutual decision. It's like if I choose to have sex, I also have to choose to take the responsibility of also getting a woman pregnant.

Exactly, and the child would inherit your traits. Likewise, the traits of the GPL would also be inherited. If you rape this so called woman, then you can't really say that she forced you to do it because she was so hot. The Law regarding these issues will be enforced, but only after they have been violated.

Re:Potato Potato

[blakestah]

> So, it is 100% possible to link to a GPL'd program and not be open source and not violate the GPL

No, not if you distribute the binary. If you are linking to MY library routines for which I hold the copyright, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to redistribute my copyrighted work, unless you follow the conditions in the GPL.

Actually, the distribution pretty much hinges on whether the work I do is a copyright derivative of your GPL'd library. I am arguing that it is not, at least if we make one assumption. That assumption is that Silent Bob wrote another library that provides the exact same function as your library.

Now my program foo is closed source and proprietary, and dynamically calls your GPLd library. Is my program a copyright derivative of your library ?

If you say yes, run my program again after setting LD_PRELOAD to load Silent Bob's library instead. Now my program doesn't even dynamically link to yours. Is it still a derivative of your GPLd library in the copyright sense ?

If multiple forms of expression exist that provide the exact same functionality, then a new copyrighted work that depends on that functionality is no longer a derivative work. In copyright law this is called something like a fixed boundary (or brick wall, or something). You have multiple options for providing functionality that exist on one side of the wall - therefore things on the other side are not derivative works. Copyright law doesn't protect functionality - only expression. Once multiple expressions exist that provide the same functionality, use of that functionality doesn't make something a derivative work.

This point is not really what the case is about - I merely wanted to point out that dynamic linking to a GPL'd library doesn't make something a derivative work always.

Too bad...

[Shiny Metal S.]

Boston, Massachusetts, USA - Friday, March, 1, 2002 - In a decision handed down today in Boston, US District Judge Patti B. Saris ruled on the preliminary injunction motion in MySQL AB vs. Progress Software Corp.

Too bad that they are fighting in court against MySQL, I really liked ProgreSQL...

Wasn't this the spirit of the GPL...

[The Pi-Guy]

...NOT to have people suing the crap out of other people over software? The wording is right, the spirit isn't. However, I wholly agree with MySQL, they should have credit.

Just my $0.02...
--j0shua

Re:Wasn't this the spirit of the GPL...

[Anonymous Coward]

No tis is a software license, if someone steals my work I'd sue them to hell and back too. Just like trolltech would do if a company picked up and started stealing the qt api. The GPL is about business, if you don't want people running around suing you use the bsd because when your code is under the bsd you might as well kiss it goodbye. If you really want to use gpl'd source.. you gotta negotiate a license fromt he various authors. Yes the code is still under your copyright so you can license it out any way you want to.

what would the expert witness say?

[Dr. Awktagon]

I'm curious, how do you argue that something is or isn't a derivative work? Especially software?

Do you say: amount of code? Amount of useful functionality created by the code (ie, the GPL code is used to implement a menu item that is not used in day-to-day usage of the program.) Do you make some kind of "user confusion" argument?

If you have two expert witnesses, wouldn't it just be an argument of "yes it is" vs. "no it isn't"?

I really never thought of this and assumed that there was something in the software copyright laws or some precedent that spelled this out clearly.

As much as I like the GPL I really hope that the writer of the License isn't the one who gets to define "derivative work" (ie, maybe microsoft someday would like to make their license cover any computer yours networks with, or something silly).

Re:what would the expert witness say?

[QuantumG]

Derivative works are defined by copyright case law. As is just about every technical legal term. There is no doubt over what is and isnt a derivative work. There are issues over what constitues a "seperated" work but this has nothing to do with copyright law, it has to do with the GPL specifically stating that significantly seperated works do not fall under the GPL when distributed seperately.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, 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.


How NuSphere intends to argue that their software is "seperate" is beyond me when it seems largely irrelevant, they distribute them as part of a whole which is based on MySQL, the program.

Re:what would the expert witness say?

[MisterBlister]

It depends on the witness. There's a ton of different ideas floating around about what constitutes linking (IPC? network calls? static libraries? dynamic libraries? what about programs that rely on a GPLed kernel's system calls?) with no clearly right answer that everyone can agree on.

It will be interested to see how it all unfolds.

public domain == communism !?

[MenTaLguY]

I'm not quite sure what PD has to do with communism, unless you want to equate IP with physical property (which is honestly a kind of dicey proposition, IMO).

Releasing under something like the X/MIT license is probably better than PD, anyway, as PD leaves you legally liable for all sorts of fun things. You'll notice that the bulk of the X/MIT license is a disclaimer of liability.

I'm glad it's Judge Saris hearing the case

[Innominate Recreant]

Back in 1996, Judge Saris made a common sense rulingin the case of State Street Bank vs. Signature Financial Group. In sumamry, SFG claimed that they had a patent on "multi-tiered" mutual funds and the software to manage it. Judge Saris ruled that the patent acquired by SGF was so broad, that no mutual fund company could do business without paying a royalty to them.

Expect a common-sense ruling from her in this case as well.

Where was she when the "1-Click" patent was challenged? :-)

Re:I'm glad it's Judge Saris hearing the case

[MisterBlister]

I'm going to show my cynical side here, but how do you know the ruling was based on common sense? Maybe someone at State Street Bank or another mutual fund company that would be negatively impacted by an SFG win had some influence over her?

I'm not saying that is the case -- perhaps she is a righteous and noble judge, just looking out for the rights of the common man; but this ruling by itself proves nothing.

MySQL AB doesn't know what linking is

[jsgf]

Unfortunately MySQL crying about GPL violation is weakened by their apparent failure to understand the GPL with respect to linking. Their license terms say that a client program linked with their LGPL client library which talks to a separate (GPL) MySQL server is effectively linking with GPL code, and therefore your client should also be under the GPL. (see bullet point 2.) The FSF's interpretation of the GPL has clearly shown that they believe IPC between separate address spaces is not linking under the GPL; this is the only reasonable interpretation, since there's no single file which contains both your client code and GPL code (and "mere aggregation" doesn't count). Of course, its up to MySQL AB to adopt whatever interpretation of the GPL they like, and if they choose to use their interpretation to sue someone, they are free to do so. But they won't get much support, and probably won't win; in doing so, they may weaken the GPL. (And no, this has nothing to do with NuSphere; their case is much more obviously GPL violation that everyone can agree with.)

Re:MySQL AB doesn't know what linking is

[renehollan]

IIRC, the FSF permitted IPC only so that a non-free shell could be loaded to run within emacs when there were no free shells available.

Communication between GPL and non-GPL code via pipes and sockets is generally O.K. so long as it isn't a sham for what would otherwise be a function call to an integral part of the larger work. In the case of emacs and a shell, it isn't emacs that needs the shell, but rather the user of emacs.

Re:MySQL AB doesn't know what linking is

[jsgf]

Not at all. The resolution of the Vidomi GPL violation was done by using IPC, with the approval of the FSF.

So, FSF?

[inerte]

As publishers of the GNU GPL, the FSF has a basic ethical imperative to educate the public and the judiciary about the license and its terms.

... FSF has to educate judiciary ...

Do I REALLY have to say anything else?

Re:So, FSF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I REALLY have to say anything else?

You don't REALLY have to but since it's hard to work out what your point is it might be helpful if you did.

who is stupider here?

[QuantumG]

The people who modded the parent post which is an obvious troll up to score 2 Insightful or the guy who writes 16 lines in response to it. They both make totally obsurd claims, maybe they're both trolls. Well done moderators!

Freudian slip

[lkaos]

yup. protection by the government.

What I want, is a decision on what a program is...

[trims]

More than anything else, I'm looking for a ruling somewhere, somehow that manages to draw nice lines around where a program starts and ends for copyright and patent purposes.

We have APIs, libraries, modules, remote function calls, socket connections, pipes, shared memory, and a whole host of different ways in which code A communicates with code B. What we really need to define in a legal sense is exactly what constitutes a "program" for the purposes of code use. I definitely want to be able to isolate code which can potentially restrict "my" code's licensing (whether through a patent, restrictive copyright, GPL, or whatever). Until we get a good definition of what is "external" to a program, this will remain a legal quagmire.

Honestly, it's a hard decision. But it needs to be made. And the sooner, the better, for all parties: Free Software, Open Source, and Proprietary.

-Erik

Software has rights ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me ? Software doesn't have a standing in any legal system. It's the people who have rights and men and women don't have inalienable rights to other people's property.

If you want to enforce your rights ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... sometimes you have to go to court.

"Spirit" doesn't enter into it.

Nice moderation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant? Troll?! It's Funny!

If I had any modpoints, I'd mod it up, but I see that today modpoints are given only to people without any sense of humor...

"Compilation"?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I'm curious, how do you argue that something is or isn't a derivative work? Especially software?

I'm curious whether they might consider the linked object to be a "compilation" in the literary sense - i.e. a collection of separate works published together without significant modification to each, such as an anthology.

As much as I like the GPL I really hope that the writer of the License isn't the one who gets to define "derivative work" (ie, maybe microsoft someday would like to make their license cover any computer yours networks with, or something silly).

Rule of thumb: When one side writes the contract, the courts construe the words as much in favor of the other side as possible. It's up to the author of the contract terms to make them clear, understandable, and legal.

ego/greed

[mgkimsal2]

I'm nowhere near a socialist, but you've definitely got something there with the ego/greed thing. Not *EVERYONE* is like that - I know some people who've GPL'd projects and they were not motivated by ego/greed - at least not to the point where it was a negative anyway. :)

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[Xtifr]

Easy to arrange. Release some code under the GPL. Get a friend to build a possibly-derivative work, using the sort of linking you want to test. Have friend release this new work under a proprietary license. Sue friend. Once a judgement has been handed down, settle out of court for some trivial sum, then repeat to test the next type of linking.

Of course, you (and friend) will probably be out-of-pocket for all court costs, and may be facing accusations of "wasting the court's time" and "filing frivolous lawsuits", but heck, you said you wanted to know, surely the information is worth spending a little money on?

Me, frankly, I don't really care, I'm happy to err on the side of caution, and save my money. :-)

cheers

Re:The disadvantages of automated trolling

[King of the World]

See now if Slashdot would offer filters for specific accounts I might pay. I'll pay for enhancements. I won't pay to not be irritated.

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[renehollan]

It is difficult, and, in some ways the GPL isn't strong enough.

Consider that simply aggregating the right components in the right way, so they "self-assemble" at run-time to form a greater whole might very well involve "abuse" of GPL code. Just look at Linux-based distributions with a great deal of non-free code and how much they benefit from a free kernel, network code, graphical system, etc. 80% free and 20% non-free. Is that fair? I'm sure that some GPL proponents would say no, even thought the GPL was not violated.

One way to deal with this is to add a clause that prohibits redistribution "if intended for the purpose of causing a computing apparatus to provide functionality essential to a larger work, and that larger work is not distributed under the same license".

Now, "intended" and "essential" might be subject to debate, and possibly interpretation by a court, but simple aggregation without creating a specific greater functional work, would still be permitted.

Re:Set that precEdent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what do you expect to be able to do? Adopt GPL code as part of your commercial software so that you can save in the developing costs? That's real lame. Commercial software costs money. Why should they get to use GPL software for free?

The fact is this: if you don't like GPL, write your own routines. If you can't write your own routines, well...

Want to be my friend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have friend release this new work under a proprietary license. Sue friend.

Want to be my friend? I promise I'll settle after the ruling ;)

Ripping off vs creating something new

[Aapje]

What good is an 'individual' capable only of ripping off someone else's work and expanding on it?

I suppose you wrote your own compiler, used no libraries and built your own hardware (not just assembled it), while happily reinventing all computer science, physics and other scientific discoveries that you would need.

We all built on the work of others, that is called progress. The idea behind copyright and patents is to give creators a _temporary_ solitary grant to 'own' the IP they come up with as an incentive to create things, while the inventions are released into the open after a certain period, leading to a large base of truly free stuff. If the grants would be eternal, we would become encumbered by them and ultimately be unable to progress futher. Big IP owners would just stifle all innovation and keep making us pay for the same recycled 'innovations'. This is already happening unfortunately.

It is clear that the current laws stifle innovation because the 'temporary' grant lasts far too long. But the GPL is no solution to this, it just prevents people from making a profit when they build on the work of others. The only problem it solves is to force the open sourcing of software, while ignoring the true battle: to fight for progress. Something that will not happen when people can't earn a paycheck with their inventions.

The BSD-license (and public domain) releases the source into the open immediatly, making it a stepstone for everyone, including commercial and BSD programmers. I've argued that this will probably mean more contributions to your code as well. I believe that open source software will never be able to fill every void (I can give plenty of examples), BSD is perfect for allowing open source and commercial software to coexist.

Time advances: facts accumulate; doubts arise. Faint glimpses of truth begin to appear, and shine more and more unto the perfect day. The highest intellects, like the tops of mountains, are the first to catch and to reflect the dawn. They are bright, while the level below is still in darkness. But soon the light, which at first illuminated only the loftiest eminences, descends on the plain, and penetrates to the deepest valley. First come hints, then fragments of systems, then defective systems, then complete and harmonious systems. The sound opinion, held for a time by one bold speculator, becomes the opinion of a small minority, of a strong minority, of a majority of mankind. Thus, the great progress goes on.
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859), English historian.

IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

This suggests that modified versions you distribute can be modified and redistributed under the GNU GPL . A consequence is that any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. Clearly, any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . The GPL says that a non-free program can be modified and used internally without releasing it Thus, a GPL-covered program can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . According to section 2 of the GPL, a program released under the GPL must be provided on a physical medium Suppose, for instance, that any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under a GPL-compatible license can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL . Analogously, any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. Furthermore, the source code for all derivative works can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . Note that any program which dinamicly links to a library which is released under the GPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party With this clarification, free software that uses non-free libraries can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . Suppose, for instance, that any program which uses a library which is released under the GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. Notice, incidentally, that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under a GPL-compatible license must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL . Presumably, a program released under a GPL-compatible license is covered by the GNU LGPL It may be, then, that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under a proprietary license can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . For one thing, any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under a proprietary license is covered by the GNU GPL So far, any program which is compiled by GCC must be provided on a physical medium . According to section 3 of the GPL, a non-free program must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. Of course, any program which uses a library which is released under the LGPL must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL . Conversely, binaries you distribute for download can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party Suppose, for instance, that a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . A consequence is that any program which dinamicly links to a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. The GPL is a free software license, and therefore a non-free program must be provided on a physical medium . Of course, any program written for a programming language interpreter which is released under the GPL can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party Presumably, a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL . Notice, incidentally, that any program which dinamicly links to a library which is released under the LGPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. The GPL says that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under a GPL-compatible license must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL . It appears that any program written for a programming language interpreter which is released under the GPL is covered by the GNU LGPL With this clarification, any program which uses a library which is released under the GPL is covered by the GNU GPL . Furthermore, any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party Of course, a GPL-covered program must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. . Clearly, any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. It may be, then, that any program which is merely aggregated to separate programs which are released under a proprietary license can be modified and redistributed under the GNU GPL . Of course, any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL is covered by the GNU GPL This suggests that any program which is sold commercially under the GNU GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. . The GPL says that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under a GPL-compatible license can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL Of course, any program which dinamicly links to a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU GPL . It may be, then, that any program which dinamicly links to a library which is released under the LGPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. It appears that modified versions you distribute must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. . Note that any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL

Sometimes common sense isn't enough

[Noel]

Yes, Judge Saris' summary judgement on State Street Bank vs. Signature Financial Group applied common sense. Unfortunately, that didn't help, because her judgement was overturned on appeal, and the final disposition of the case is what established the patentability of software business methods.

To make any difference in our legal system, common sense must be allied with and supported by solid legal argument. Otherwise, we can easily end up with legal conclusions that are absolutely nonsensical. Yeah, that's often frustrating...

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[Samrobb]

Just look at Linux-based distributions with a great deal of non-free code and how much they benefit from a free kernel, network code, graphical system, etc. 80% free and 20% non-free. Is that fair?

Yes, because that's what was intended. Linus set out to create a general-purpose operating system, not make a political point. It's no surprise he's succeeded at the first and failed at the later (at least, from your point of view).

If you want to use an OS that promotes the GNU political agenda, please feel free to stop using Linux and switch to HURD.

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[renehollan]

Not all of the code was exclusively written by Linus. And, he did not set out to make an operating system but rather a kernel.

The failure of GNU to catch on with the Hurd as a micro-kernel has more to do with the slow development of the Hurd than the FSF political agenda: Debian GNU/Linux is a fairly succesful example.

The arguable greater popularity of other Linux-based operating systems with non-free code is a testament to the fact that people are willing to give up software freedom for convenience. Fair enough. However, I wonder how many understand the true nature of what they are giving up. What if they need support? How can they audit for spyware?

As computers become more ubiquitious, and essential parts of our lives, the need for transparancy in what they do will become ever more important.

My point is simply this: as computer systems become more complex, the boundary between simple aggregation and losely coupled linking becomes more blurred. Many GPL proponents like the GPL because it severely limits the ways in which GPL code can be coopted to help providers of non-free code, so yes, this is political. However, this desire is going to be increasingly not met by more tenuous ways to "get around" the spirit of what these people want. I suggest only a way that they can have their cake and eat it to, without necessarly completely buying into the political viewpoint.

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[evbergen]

FWIW, I'd make that boundary equivalent to the boundary between address spaces.

That distiction is good, because programs that share address spaces can alter each others behaviour in arbitrary ways, because they have full access to each others internal variables,
whereas otherwise, each program stays in control of its own behaviour and is free to choose how it reacts to input from the other program.

IOW, communicating with a program through its intended I/O channels, be it files, Unix- or TCP sockets or otherwise, never makes a derivative work, because each program is still free to perform its intended function, which may not be the case for linked objects.

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[darkonc]

Many GPL proponents like the GPL because it severely limits the ways in which GPL code can be coopted to help providers of non-free code, so yes, this is political.

Political or practical? Just like Bill Gates doesn't like people using his code for free, some people like to be able to profit (in an non-financial sense) from their code. By releasing code in a GPL manner, one gets the advantage of both their own code, and of other peoples' code and work.

When someone takes such free code and closes it, the original author now has to pay to use the results of his/her work.
Some people just hate the idea of being forced to pay to use their own code.

Re:What I want, is a decision on what a program is

[renehollan]

Political or practical? Just like Bill Gates doesn't like people using his code for free, some people like to be able to profit (in an non-financial sense) from their code. By releasing code in a GPL manner, one gets the advantage of both their own code, and of other peoples' code and work.

This is practical only in the sense that it is a reasonable belief to hold. However, it is political in that it is based on the philosophy of a particular ethical view, hence political (politics: philosophy of ethics).

There are other ethical views, for example, the view that I can claim my work, but not derivatives. The BSD license reflects this, and enjoys some success.

Some people just hate the idea of being forced to pay to use their own code.

Whether derivative works are still "their own" is debatable, but if you believe that they are, then yes, the GPL is the license for you.

This gets into a whole grey area of what constitutes a derivative work. While copyright law is fairly clear, it breaks down when it comes to code binaries, because correct aggregation can create derived "functionality" that is greater than that of the individual component parts -- i.e. put the right code in the right place and it will find it's parts.

The same ethos which suggests that source derivatives of GPL code should remain free would also suggest that functional derivatives should remain free, no?

Again, some might say yes, and others no, but to those that would say yes, the GPL is not "strong enough" -- probably because of its rootings in copyright law.

A: You are. HTH!

[CRConrad]

What do you mean, "I am what"?

How many questions did you ask, in the post I'm replying to?