Re: [PLUG] RMS and GNU/sink (was: systrace is cool)

[Jason <jason@nocks.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 15 June 2002 20H:55, Bill Jonas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 07:20:08PM -0400, Jason wrote:
> > I think one of the main points is that you had to agree to the terms
> > of the GNU Public License to use the "Linux" kernel.
>
> Actually, you are required to do no such thing.  It would be perfectly
> legal for me to disagree with the GPL and still use software licensed
> under the GPL.  The important distinction is that the GPL is not a

Excellent point. I guess I should have said that you should know about the 
licensing terms rather than "you had to agree". Because, my understanding is 
the simple act of making a copy for a friend would be considered 
"distribution". Clearly, I had missed the point you mentioned.

> license to *use* (End-User License Agreement), but it is a license to
> *distribute* (Re-Distributer License Agreement?).  Put another way,
> here's what the GPL itself says about the issue (section 5, in its
> entirety):
>
>     5.  You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
>     signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
>     distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
>     prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
>     modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
>     Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
>     all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
>     the Program or works based on it.
>
> (This is why it irritates me when I see software installers with
> EULA-style dialog boxes sporting Agree/Disagree buttons with the GPL in
> the box.  Although it could be argued that you could actually be saying,
> "Yes, I agree that I do not have to accept this license to use the
> software.")
>
...

> Since I'm already rambling, I'll just point out that nothing's stopping
> you from modifying GPL'd software and keeping the changes secret.
> (Common misconception I've seen people have, though not necessarily in
> PLUG.)  Use it yourself, use it in your business; the GPL only kicks in
> when you distribute it outside your organization (to a friend, to the
> public, whatever).

This point I was actually aware of, and is something I use to promote the use 
of the GPL'd software to others, including for business use.

I think the issue of distributing within an organization (business or 
otherwise) is a little unclear, though. I would argue that you need to comply 
with the GPL "distribution rights", to "play it safe", especially for larger 
businesses. For those of us that are self-employed, I would say that you 
could probably make your own copies and let others "use" those copies on your 
behalf. But, if you provide a location for others within an organization to 
obtain copies, that would probably be considered "distribution". However, I'm 
definitely not a lawyer.

I'm probably splitting an already thin hair, though. Maybe that's why I've 
lost a number of mine already...

Here's what I would consider to be a relevent section (the last paragraph from 
section 3) if you're interested:

	If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to
	copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
	source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code,
	even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the
	object code. 

Clearly, this section appears to consider "offering access to copy from a 
designated place" to be distribution...

>
> Sorry for chasing rabbits here...

No, thank you for clarifying this. I think you raised a very important point 
that I had completely overlooked. Thanks to you, hopefully more than a couple 
of people (besides myself) better understand a finer point in the GPL.

Maybe I should have added a "if any point in this message is found to be 
invalid, the remaining points should be assumed to still be valid from the 
author's point of view" clause to my original message. - Just kidding, I 
almost always see stuff like that in amusing legalese documents.

- - Jason Nocks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj0ME4wACgkQ3CryLfCgqRlm3gCcCZn0/gkIa0Jl7ahuc+tT+RcT
t9IAnipaKzA+WYsvyNCJmugVlOTbXjyQ
=55tj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug