@ 12/05/2004 16:12 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Humberto Massa wrote:
1. I get gcc's sources;
1. (a) I have a valid license to it;
2. I get metafont sources;
2. (a) I also have a valid license to this;
-- up to this point, no license violation
3. I make modifications to gcc and to metafont, taking care of :
3. (a) not removing any copyright (C) notices -- they are already
there,
I don't need to put them, I received gcc under the terms of the GPL,
with the notices, and the disclaimer (as to satisfy GPL#1);
3. (b) marking the changed files as changed as to satisfy GPL#2, 'a';
3. (c) gcc does not have the announcement in GPL#2, 'c', so nothing
else
is required;
3. (d) I will take appropriate similar precautions stated in
metafont's
license (OPL?) in making the modifications to metafont's files;
-- up to this point, no license violation
4. I will write my files needed to integrate both, taking all the
necessary precautions 3 a-d above. Notice that probably my files
(unless
completely unrelated) are derived works both of metafont and of gcc.
-- no license violation.
5. I will diff the sources from the resulting program with the
original
sources
This diff is a derived work of your program and the original sources.
-- no license violation.
6. I will write a script that like this:
mkdir ~/metagcc; chdir ~/metagcc
wget $PATH_TO_GCC_SOURCES
tar xzvf $GCC_SOURCES
wget $PATH_TO_METAFONT_SOURCES
tar xzvf $METAFONT_SOURCES
patch -p1 ../../metagcc.patch
metagcc.patch is a derived work of your metagcc, which is a derived work
of both gcc and metafont, so you cannot distribute metagcc.patch unless
it satisfies the terms of gcc's license and metafont's license.
Even if that is not the case, wouldn't this script constitute
"contributory infringement"?
Only if this is the case (if I can't distribute metagcc.patch). I don't
know about metagcc license (which I think is the OPL, but I'm not
certain of it). And contributory infringement is an
USofA-jurisdiction-specific thing, here in Brasil there is no such
entity. And I'm sure it's the case in many places.
My primary tought is that: not containing gcc nor metafont code, and
being on its entirety of my original copyright, EMPHASIS: being entirely
*my* intellectual creation, I can license metafont.patch differently, I
am the sole copyright holder to it, as I can license the script, but
this can be wrong. I'll think a little bit more. The script does not
seem to be a derived work on any of them.
Again, all this is does not apply in the case of Gentoo/OpenSSL I mentioned:
1. take a GPL'd program that uses GNUTLS.
2. make some alterations so it now is OpenSSL compatible.
3. make the thing.ebuild that will link them at a later time.
But yes, you DO have a point. Or two.
--
br,M
