Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Given that the GPL applies only when a notice is contained in the >> > work, >> >> That is not true. For example, I have next to me a watercolor >> painting licensed under the GPL. The work itself does not contain a >> notice; rather, there is a tag next to it which gives its title, >> copyright information, and the fact that it is licenses to all those >> who receive a copy -- though not all viewers -- under the terms of the >> GNU GPL, version 2. > > If the work doesn't contain a notice, the GPL doesn't say that it applies.
The referent of "it" is unclear to me. I think you're saying that if the work does not contain a notice about the GPL, the work is not licensed to me under the GPL. This is malarky. While it is true that a prominent notice in the work is often a good way to publish availability under a public license, it is not necessary. It is perfectly reasonable for me to give you a work and a separate license notice. > Of course for copyright purposes it might be reasonable to say that the > painting and the notice together are contained in the work. The notice is eight words long and involved no creativity. It is a plain statement of fact. I do not consider it part of the work. If it is considered a copyrightable work, I insist that it is my property and you may neither copy nor permute it -- but you may state the same facts in a different way. >> Similarly, I could hand you a book and tell you that I license to you >> all my rights in that book under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL >> would apply. > > And if you lied? > > Or changed your mind? > > Or if I lied? > > How could a judge know that I wasn't lying when I tell him you said it > was a GPLed work? The same way he would know you weren't lying when you produced a text file and said it was from me. The resolution protocol is outside the scope of the license. >> > and given that you must keep that notice intact, ... well you still have >> > the notice (or notices), which you must leave intact, that's still -- >> > in the fully general sense that some people seem to want to use -- >> > a restriction on modifications to the work. >> >> You are incorrect due to overgeneralization. You must leave a notice >> iff there was a notice. But, for a start, that is only a mark on the >> source code. It need not impact the compiled program at all. That >> is, it must be visible to one inspecting the program, but not to one >> using the program. You must also leave the notice on an interactive >> program intact, but that is also a much weaker limitation -- it does >> not apply to noninteractive programs, for example. > > Are you trying to argue that a GPLed binary is a work independent from > the sources it's built from? Of course not. The compiled binary is a derivative work of the sources. But look at normal noninteractive gpl'd code -- the marks and notices that the work is under the GPL are in source code comments, or in a text file adjacent to the binary. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
