Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
> > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not
> > > > clear.
> > >
> > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they
> > > don't claim their own code to be GPL.
> > >
> > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be
> > > GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to
> > > it, not because it contained another author's GPL code.
> > >
> > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another
> > > author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second
> > > option is available to the first author and the courts will have to
> > > sort it.
> >
> > The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it
> > still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you
> > are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be
> > considered.
> >
> > It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any
> > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
> > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another
> > license.
> >
> > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under
> > GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the
> > GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the
> > original which must be distributed under the same license.
> >
> > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read
> > the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or
> > any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
> > License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
> > distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it.
> >
> > End of story.
>
> Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me
> here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes
> but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not accept it
> and break the law instead.
>
> Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since copyright law
> has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the
> issue accordingly.
>
> > Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the
> > code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own
> > actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into
> > effect.
>
> Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your code. It
> is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The law does
> not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The author must
> GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the
> original license.
>
> > If they want to distribute their original code under a different license
> > that can also be done.

Eben Moglen in http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html

"Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it.

This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed."

Check that line near the end: "no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL". Now this is a lawyer for free software saying almost exactly
what I have. The assumption is that if you distribute the software then you
are intending to accept the license by doing so. Thus the license applies even
if you are breaking some rule or law regardless of ignorance or intention.

If that is not clear enough I do not know what is. Show me how this leading
legal representative for free software has got it wrong! The evidence is
clear. You distribute it, then you are accepting the license and it applies
to your code.

What possible counter-argument can there be left?

Raymond

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Aug 7 00:15:03 2009