On Wed, Nov 28, 2001, Amnon Shiloh wrote about "Re: making a non-GPLed module":
>...
> The whole GPL-based arguments are irrelevant: we were distributing
> a piece of software that was written and copyrighted solely by us,
> we did not copy anybody else's code (including implicitly due to compilation),
> therefore we have the right to issue our own software in any way we like.
> The purpose/usefullness of this code is also irrelevant, so long as it is
> legal (eg. not designed to produce bombs, drugs or for other crimes), and
> there is no law against linking one's software against another piece of
> legally-obtained software.
>...
Finally some interesting words in the boring what-does-the-GPL-*really*-means
saga (this whole thread almost convinced me to eschew the GPL and start using
some sort of BSD or X license... People seem to be forgetting that free
software was meant to free you from needing to consulting lawyers before you
can see/use some software's code...).
Indeed, if you give away (or sell) patches to whatever copyrighted software
(in this case, the Linux kernel), and the patches only include your own code,
100% your code, I see no reason how the license of the original program can
effect your ability to distribute those patches!
Compare this to someone selling a page of text, and saying "if you insert this
after page 17 of The Book of Whatever, then the resulting book would be much
funnier.". How can this be regarded a copyright violation? As a more realistic
example, consider someone giving away (or selling) patches that modify a
commercial computer game (add levels, add cheats, etc.). This might be a
violation of some crappy anti-reverse-engineering law (DMCA?) but not a
copyright violation in the traditional sense.
This, of course, assumes that you only give patches. If you give prepatched
copies of the original software, then of course everything changes, because
you are actually redistributing parts of the original software.
P.S.
There's one exception to what I just said, though, and I'm not sure if it
applies to the GPL (I think it doesn't). If when you, as the end user, got
the copyrighted work (kernel, book, etc.) agreed never to insert other
stuff (patches, pages, etc.) into it, then you'll need to abide by that
agreement.
Does the GPL have such a clause? Are you not allowed to patch a GPL program
for private use? I thought it didn't, and that RMS spoke out loudly against
licenses which don't allow you to privately patch the program (by private
patching I mean making any kind of patch you want, but never distributing
the result). If "private patching" is not forbidden, then someone can
distributed patches, users are allowed to apply the patches to their own copy
of the software, and there is no copyright violation.
Here is the relevant part of the GPL: section 2:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
And I don't see here (or elsewhere in the GPL) a clause prohibiting
private patching by the end users...
--
Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Nov 28 2001, 13 Kislev 5762
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Sign in zoo: Do not feed the animals. If
http://nadav.harel.org.il |you have food give it to the guard on duty
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
