l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
Next Meeting:
July 7: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
Latest News:
Jun. 14: June LUGOD meeting cancelled
Page last updated:
2002 Oct 16 21:20

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox] need help: long boring question about the GPL
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox] need help: long boring question about the GPL

begin Mark K. Kim <markslist@cbreak.org> 
> FSF has made it clear that they can't enforce GPL violations on software
> that's not copyrighted by FSF.

reference, please.  how did they make this clear?

> So if the copyright owners of Chord
> violated the GPL of their own software, which I don't think they've done
> here (explained below), there's nothing you can do.
> Furthermore, the authors of a piece of software is allowed to distribute
> their software with any of type of license they want, including making new
> licenses based on another one with modifications (IANAL, tho).  To me,
> their intention is clear -- they wanna distribute their software under a
> modified GPL.

does that mean i should ignore the file named "license.txt" that is pure
GPL as well as the "--about" switch that also says pure GPL?

i'm not a mind reader -- it's not clear to me WHAT their intentions are.
i'd have to agree with rod in saying they're very confused.  and i don't
understand confusion very well.  :)

but in addition, saying "this software is licensed under the GPL except
you can't redistribute modifications to the code" is like ... well, i
don't have words for it.  clueless?  missing the whole point?

IANAL, but i'm pretty sure you're wrong.  the GNU GPL text itself is
under the GPL.  they used it in their software package.  that should
make the software package GPL as well.

but even if you don't like this argument, they used LGPL code in their
software (you must have not read this part).  read what i had to say
about LGPL in the original post; i think in this circumstance, they're
in violation of the LGPL, even if not in violation of the GPL.

but even if you aren't wrong, you should be wrong.  ;)

> Also, if the previous versions of their software was under GPL, but the
> newer versions of their software is under modified GPL, one may ask
> whether that's a violation of GPL.  But remember there's a clause in GPL
> to take back the GPL license on future releases of the software by the
> copyright holder(s) (IANAL, but that's what I recall.)  So all they've
> done, as far as I can see, is they took back the the GPL on the new
> version of the software and released it under a modified GPL.

it's the other way around.  version 4 is GPL.  it's uncertain what the
license on version 3 is.  but that was part of the confusion -- they had
2 different licenses.  GPL and their non-free-as-in-speech GPL.

vox mailing list

LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
Appahost Applications
For a significant contribution towards our projector, and a generous donation to allow us to continue meeting at the Davis Library.