On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:06:27 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oh no, this has everything to do with copyright. Software released under the GPL is based on the fact that even though you have access to look at the source code, copyright law protects the author from you using it in ways she does not sanction. If you want to use it, you have to get the permission of the copyright holder. The copyright holder in this case uses the GPL to let you know what the terms and conditions are. The GPL gives you many freedoms, but there are some expectations of you as well. > That's not a relevant analogy either. It doesn't copy or > even imitate another work. All analogies are flawed, but there _was_ a useful principle hidden in it. > No it isn't. The RIPEM author was surprised, as was just > about everyone else at the time. Well it was an unfortunate learning experience then. > The work being discussed was released in source. Releasing the source is a necessary condition but is not a sufficient condition for you to be in compliance with the GPL. The GPL is available for reading and I wont try to play lawyer here any more than I already have. > 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. Just comply with the, by now well known, requirements of the GPL, and the chances of you having any legal problems are quite small. If you want to live on the edge of what might-or-might-not be legal under the GPL then have a good lawyer. Sean
