On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 22:35, Sean wrote:
> > No, it's not an exception and has nothing to do with it
> > being a library. The FSF and my interpretations would
> > apply equally to any snippet of code even if it is included
> > inline instead of being linked. The point is that no copyrighted
> > material covered by the GPL material is being distributed.
> > The end user has his own copy of the GPL'd material and the
> > right to use that copy any way he wants. Yet the FSF
> > claims the right to prohibit distribution of this other
> > code containing no parts under their license by someone
> > with no reason to have ever agreed to their license.
>
> Give your head a shake. Just because you have a copy of a DVD
> does not give you the right to make as many copies as you want
> and distribute them as you wish.
No one said anything about copying material covered by
a copyright in this case. It would be closer to someone
distributing software that would play a certain clip
from your own dvd if you put them together in your
own computer - and the dvd copyright holder trying to
prevent this original software from being distributed.
> You have to ABIDE BY THE LICENSE.
And how do you imagine that the license covers this
software written entirely by another party?
> If you want to distribute a play that is based on the Star Wars(tm)
> DVD you bought, you better be damn sure you've got a good lawyer too.
That's not a relevant analogy either. It doesn't copy or
even imitate another work.
> The GPL license is very clear.
No it isn't. The RIPEM author was surprised, as was just
about everyone else at the time.
> > No one can understand those legal ramifications.
>
> Yes, they're very easy to understand. And you have nothing to
> worry about if you comply with the license by releasing the
> source code to any extensions you make to a GPL work.
The work being discussed was released in source.
> It's only unclear to people who can't get their head out of their
> ass long enough to take a good look.
That's simply not true. You'd have to understand the FSF
lawyer's imagination to see how copyright law might cover
something other than copying covered material. Or how
the possible existence of some material similar to the
covered version that isn't being copied would make a
difference.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
