On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,: > > > My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him > > that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his > > unprofessional conduct (hopefully leading to the disbarment or > > other disciplinary action) is going to reach the critical mass > > pretty soon. So he might want to slowdown a bit. > > Hmm.. another SCO in the making.
SCO is a product of FSF. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7801/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer) <quote> "GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to Sontag... </quote> http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt <quote> I asked Richard to comment on several scenarios involving plug-ins explain whether or not they were in violation of the GPL. So far he as only addressed one and has effectively admitted a hole. This is the one I asked that he's responded to: [A] non-GPL'd plug-in writer writes a plug-in for a non-GPL'd program. Another author writes a GPL'd program making the first author's plug-ins compatible with his program. Are now the plug-in author's plug-ins now retroactively required to be GPL'd? His response: No, because the plug-in was not written to extend this program. </quote> Judge: Okay, but what if all these works were written to extend a "free GPL'd program"? Stallman: Oh, all power to them; all these works would, of course, fall under the GPL as "derivative works" (aka "derived works"). Judge: Sontag, do you agree with Mr. Stallman? Sontag: Of course! GPL has the same derivative rights concept as UNIX. And those IBM's works were written to extend OUR program and hence, as "derivative works", they fall under our licensing restrictions with respect to confidential treatment. I want up to 50$ billion in damages from IBM, your Honor. </quote> Now regarding the GPLv3 (draft) and "another SCO in the making" I'll quote day5done. <quote> The GPLv3 states: "2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program. The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program. This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law." Anyone see the words "This License explicitly affirms your *unlimited permission* to run the Program"? When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are "running" (executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The linked code is object code that is executed in memory. Moglen states: "We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released." Since when does "unlimited permission" mean "--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."? I thought "unlimited permission" meant "unlimited permission". Hmmmmm. Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again... Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat like SCO claiming "all your code is mine". Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd? </quote> regards, alexander.
