>...
>Am Mittwoch, 23. November 2005 23:11 schrieb jdow:
>> From: "Mathias Homann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > "the ProofPoint Spam Detection (TM) module uses the ProofPoint
>> > MLX(TM) technology for automated learning (pat.pend.)" which in
>> > itself doesn't tell
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^--- Somebody ought to
>> check that statement out. Automated learning is something SA has
>> been doing for quite a few years now so any prospective patent on
>> it in an anti-spam environment should be void. But it might be a
>> good idea to make sure the patent examiners are aware of this.
>
>another weak point of that thing is that they say it runs linux... and
>i guess most of the other stuff "in there" is GPL'ed, too.... and i
>can't for the life of me find the link to download the sources
>anywhere...
>
>bye
> MH
>
>--
>gpg key fingerprint: 5F64 4C92 9B77 DE37 D184 C5F9 B013 44E7 27BD
>763C
>
One common misconception about the GPL is that a product having
GPL'd code must make the code source public; Not true - the code source
must only be made available to people to whom the binaries are distributed,
i.e. people who buy the boxes. I worked for a company that did all of
our major development tools based on GPL'd code - we avoided the download
(and archive - see clause 3a) requirements by shipping source with the
"product" to every licensee - further we wanted them to release the tools
to the "public" (this was a consumer product, sold to companies who used it
within their own products), but since they could ship without any GPL'd code
(just code generated by the GNU toolchain and other "generated" things), they
were not bound to release anything, and none of them did.
For a good commercial example, look at vxWorks, an embedded OS,
that makes heavy use of GPL'd code - all customers can get copies of the
code and/or download it (BTW. the vxWorks kernel is neither Linux or GPL'd
and is the "actual" product of the company, so most consumer devices built
around vxWorks do *not* contain GPL'd code, just what the developers use
does), but the public has no access. The important rule in clause 3 and
demonstrated and embodied by the explanatory text:
"
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
"
Put simply, the people who get the binaries must have access to
the code; There is no explicit or implicit requirement that anyone else
have access - i.e. using GPL'd code does not mean the sources must be
made public, just make available to the people who buy the product. If an
individual or company is *not* a recipient of the binary containing the
GPL'd code, there is no reason they should have access to its source. Also,
a company creating products incorporating GPL'd code may choose to restrict
distribution by providing the source on media of their choice, so long as
they only charge reasonable media costs (i.e. a few dollars for the CD with
the code) - it needn't be "download-able" anywhere.
This is a fine point, but a very important one to the companies
using GPL'd code - they don't mind (or at least are willint to allow) paying
customers get access to the code, but they don't want or intend for it to
become generally available.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and my interpretations may or may not
represent any already made or made in the future by any legal institution
or court.
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
