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

[Peter Jay Salzman <p@diraMAPSc.org>]

begin Mark K. Kim <markslist@cbreak.org> 
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Slashdot:
> 
>  http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/14/1844201&mode=thread&tid=117
 
hmmm... /. seems to be down.  or busy.  or my DSL sucks.  or all three.

> > 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?
> 
> In computer programming, what do you do when the comment in the sourcecode
> conflicts with the code itself? -- You try to figure out what happened.
> Generally, either the code is wrong due to some typo or error, or the
> comment wasn't updated after the code was changed.  Whichever the case,
> it's fairly easy to figure out what happened if you know enough about
> what's going on.
> 
> >From their words:
> 
>    Sorry for all the negatives rules ... but we've been bitten once!
> 
> it sounds as though the program was once distributed under GPL, but they
> ran into trouble, so they added restrictions to the license.  Hence the
> apology for "all the negative rules."
> 
> As for "license.txt" and "-A", it's apparently a remnant of the old code
> that hasn't been updated.  They should update it.  Naughty of them to
> keep the old stuff lying around.  But the above quote from their docs
> seems to be aware of the GPL while "license.txt" and "-A" aren't
> seem to be aware of the "negative rules", so the docs seems to be newer,
> which would mean it supercedes the GPL.  I'd think the court would see it
> that way too, though it's probably never get that far.

i disagree.  maybe i'm just an idiot, but i just don't see it.  in all
the large programs *i've* ever written, the code always gets updated,
the docs always fall by the wayside.  i write docs during the planning
stage and promptly forget they exist.

to me, your argument can work both ways.

> > 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.
> ==8<--
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You said they *use* LGPL code, which doesn't consititute an LGPL
> violation.  If they statically link to the LGPL code, then that has some
> consequences.  From the implication... I guess they link statically?

AFAIK, they don't distribute binaries for linux, although they do for
windows.  i don't know much about their win32 executables.

> My understanding is LGPL pretty much says you gotta be allowed to change
> the LGPL code in the final binary, which you can because you got the
> sourcecode.  But AFAIK restrictions on further distribution or
> commercial/public usage, etc., doesn't violate LGPL as long as you can
> recompile the program after modifying the LGPL code.
> 
> > but even if you aren't wrong, you should be wrong.  ;)
> 
> Yeah, I should be wrong.  I could be.  After all, IANAL.  IANAL.  I just
> like that word so much.  IANAL.
 
i wouldn't go around saying that too much.  people might get the wrong
idea...   ;-)

> ==8<--
> > 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.
> 
> What I meant is versions 1 and 2 seems to have been GPL, and version 3
> changed to modified GPL.  You could modify version 4 since it's a full
> GPL, but too bad it's a Java-only version.

ahh.  i didn't know about versions 1 and 2.  you obviously peeked.

still unclear in my mind.  i think i'm going to just ignore their wacky
license.  if they cared, they would've gotten back to me by now...

pete
 

-- 
Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
vox@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox