GPL compliance

[Mario Vukelic]

I don't have to the time to discuss each and every piece of
misinformation in your posting, so I'll only point out the worst.

Your main intent seems to be to spread FUD about the GPL and because
this is offtopic on this list, I ask you to stop. We can meet on
Slashdot

On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 18:16 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> No, I'm not saying that.

Then why do you continue arguing?

> The
> fact that the SCO case seems to be going nowhere doesn't mean 

Puleeze. Everyone with half a brain knew that they have no case on day
one, and if you think the FSF has bad lawyers, think again
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/

> As I said:
> 
>    The hope is that all of these other owners have previously licensed
>    the software to everyone with some kind of general public license,
>    be it FSF GPL, BSD, MIT, X11, etc.
> 
> That's a hope that all open-source publishers must have, unless
> they're foolish enough to have not thought about the issues much.

Again, every piece of code that is packaged has a copyright file. It's
really easy to check

> > Right, therefore GNU/Linux
> > distributions don't exist.
> > Please take a look at /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright for any piece
> > of software that is installed.
> 
> That's silly.  Take me seriously, please.

It's really hard to take you seriously. What is not serious about the
copyright file of a package?

> I did not say they didn't (with possible minor exceptions as noted
> above).  I _was_ implying that the GPL's magic statement clauses make
> the GPL nasty. 

There are no "magic clauses". And how do you define "nasty"? I thought
you were in favor of accurate language.

>  I was talking about the OP's statement that he was
> worrying only about the Canonical license for the whole CD and I was
> saying that he needed to also worry about the magic statement terms
> of licenses on other GPL'd software 

It's hard to argue with you because you never even say what those "magic
statements" are supposed to be. Anyway, the GPL is the same for all
software that uses it, and its implications are well established

> Redistributable software is redistributable only under the terms of
> their licenses. 

As given in the copyright file

>  The issue at hand is whether the OP can ignore,
> say, Red Hat's requirements, and simply satisfy Canonical's.  (Whether
> satisfying Canonical's simultaneously satisfies Red Hat's is one of
> the things that he should worry about, IMO.  It's not obvious.)

What would Red Hat's requirements be?

> >> To repeat for clarity: That license that covers the CD is only between
> >> you and Canonical and only applies to the IP owned by Canonical. 
> >
> > This is complete nonsense. Well, maybe the license that covers "the CD"
> > does.
> 
> So it's complete nonsense unless it's not? 

It's complete nonsense unless possibly a completely irrelevant minor
detail is concerned. Maybe there is some irrelevant special relationship
with Canonical for the physical CD, IANAL, but the software on the CD
has clear terms.

>  That's hard to argue with.
> Yes, that's the license that the OP was worrying about and the one I
> was referring to.  From 17 USC 103:
> 
>     The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
>     the material contributed by the author of such work, as
>     distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
>     [...]

First of all, I care little for US copyright law.
Second, it seems that you are insinuating that there third parties may
have rights to the code, which were violated by licensing the code under
a free license. Prove it or go away.

> That copyright is licensed by the owner to each party who agrees to
> it's terms.  The proprietor (eg, the FSF) doesn't threaten the world
> with lawsuits; it threatens individual parties who are deemed to be
> violators.

The FSF threatens noone. I might have serious discussions if a GPL
violation is concerned but that's it. It certainly threatens nobody for
doing what the GPL allows

>   And by the quote just above, the owner has no basis to sue
> over pre-existing IP; just it's own, such as that covered by the
> license.  The other software must be considered (worried about)
> separately.

Can't follow


> Sorry, that depends upon a peculiar definition of "freedom" which
> is not held by many open-sourcers. 

Irrelevant to the discussion

>  Copyleft requires that you
> pay for the privilege of publishing derivatives by cross-licensing
> the deriver's IP back to the copyleftist (and to others).

Utter nonsense. Copyleft requires that if you take copylefted code,
change it and redistribute it, then (and only then) are you required to
make you changes (and only those) copylefted. Other "IP" you might own
is not affected in any way.

>   Cross
> license are a form of fee-licensing by barter.  It's a restriction
> that means that you have no more freedom (in kind) to derive from
> it than any other fee-licensed software like many software libraries.

Do you mean to say I have the same rights with, say, Microsoft's MFC as
I have with, say, gtk+? *shakes head in bewilderment*

> > I can't follow you here
> 
> If I believed that, I'd expain further.

It was true


> Yes, but only along with some other facts which are more debatable.
> If a OS publisher mails out a code-only CD, can he satisfy "Accompany it 
> with [...] source" by making the source available on line (without the
> promise to keep it there ala 3b).

No he can't, as clearly stated by the GPL. If he distributes a
binary-only CD, he has to accompany it with a written offer for the
source code (which may only cost the handling fee). Ubuntu complies with
that by printing the offer on the CD cover

> But when he's considering his satisfaction of the terms of his license
> with, say, Red Hat, it's not quite so obvious that it can be satisfied
> by Ubuntu's promise which is not mentioned (even by implication)
> AFAIK. 

Again, what does Red Hat have to do with it? Ubuntu takes source from
all kinds of places, builds and distributes binary packages, and offers
the source code for these binary packages. How is any of this Red Hat's
concern?

>  Maybe that's what the licensor (not necessarily the FSF)
> means, but maybe not.  It wouldn't if I had any GPL'd IP in Ubuntu.

If you GPL software, you are bound by the terms of the GPL whether you
like it or not

> If I was selfish enough to use GPL, I'd want all publishers to provide
> the source, not just the last up-stream ones or non-commercial ones.
> (And how is that not discriminatory and thus not OSD-compliant?)

It's a chain!. The original developer releases code (and if he wants
also binaries). He has complied. The distributor copies the code,
packages binaries and offers the code for the binaries. He has complied.
According to 3(a9-(c), redistributor has to offer the code too if he is
commercial, otherwise can refer to the first distributor

> I must comment on that not-so-wisecrack.  It's sad, but not suprising,
> to see accurate language referred to as "newspeak".

Accurate language? The term IP is specifically used to blur the
distinctions between the very different concepts of copyright, patents,
trademarks and trade secrets, usually to claim the rights given by one
of these concepts for stuff it doesn't apply to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#TOCIntellectualProperty

>   Ransom Love is a
> kernel developer, 

This was very funny. Ransom Love was the CEO of Caldera, and is an MBA
and BA. I very much doubt he has ever touched kernel code, in any case
he is not "a kernel developer". He does not occur on lkml.org as a
contributor: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ransom+Love%22+site%
3Alkml.org

> but "his" software is owned by Red Hat.  It is the
> owner and licensor.  Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.

Yeah, Red Hat is the developer then. Talking about IP makes no sense.
Red Hat has copyrights, trademarks, and possibly trade secrets and
patents. Talk about those specific legal constructs.


> It's never so available to those poor folks without Internet who buy CDs.

What's so hard to understand. If you can download the binaries, you can
dl the source. If you get the binaries on CD, it has a written offer

> With many legal niceties well ignored.  

Such as?

> The OP wanted to worry about one silly thing that
> few have worried about until very recently.

The OP wanted to be sure to comply with the GPL, which has been a very
usual thing for 20 years

>  I was just trying to get
> him to understand that there is another very-closely-related issue. He
> should worry about both or neither, IMO.

As far as I am concerned, you have utterly failed to demonstrate any
other issue

> As for calling my replies "FUD", it seems that you're telling me to
> ignore licensing issues raised by others. 

No, I'm asking you to not make up stuff

> I don't much appreciate your attempt to sensor me before I've made
> much of a pest of myself.

Did I hijack your ISP or what? I replied and asked for something

> Now you're suppling cause for FUD: How much might each of these
> parties' understanding of the FSF's GPL count

Not very much. They put their software under GPL, put a copyright file
in, probably preceded every source file with the relevant language. Thus
they are bound by the GPL. If they find out afterwards that they don't
like its terms, though luck. I have never heard of this occurring anyway

Yes, ultimately, as with all legal matters, a court would have to
decide. But worrying about this is like not eating because you are
afraid that some hidden meaning might be attached to the food license.