Raul Miller wrote: >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> >> as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require >> >> that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the >> >> distributed work. >> > >> > I don't think this is a very meaningful distinction, for the context I >> > was discussing. > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:36:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> The distinction is very important when discussing the freeness or >> non-freeness of the GFDL. > > But this was the GPL, not the GFDL. > >> > 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. It does anyway, if my notice says it applies.
> Of course for copyright purposes it might be reasonable to say that the > painting and the notice together are contained in the work. No. That's not right; it would imply that the copyright over the work applied to the notice, which it doesn't. >> 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? You kept a copy of the notice, didn't you? :-) Perhaps you recorded Brian's verbal statement? >> > 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? No, he isn't. Why would you think that? -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
