Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:32:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:32:46 -0500 Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de ([129.217.4.42]:50564 "EHLO waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:32:44 -0500 Message-Id: <200302112042.h1BKgTPu014960@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> To: David Schwartz Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Monta Vista software license terms In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:39:57 PST." <20030211193959.AAA14852@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:42:29 +0100 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3612 Lines: 77 David Schwartz said: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:42:26 +0100, Horst von Brand wrote: > >>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:42:45 -0600, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > >>>I certainly agree, but the problem is the NDA puts the shoe on the > >>>other foot and now it's the customer that has to consult a lawyer > >>>or risk a nuisance suit before proceeding. So while it may not > >>>forbid, it certainly discourages and impedes. Let me point out that > >>>I never saw the NDA in question but said coworker was sufficiently > >>>intimidated by it that he was unwilling to give me a copy of the > >>>kernel and gcc sources because of it. > >> I believe such a provision would, unfortunately, by considered > >>legally enforceable. The rationale would be that the rights you (the > >>recipient of the derived work) have under the GPL would only apply if > >>the distributor were bound by the GPL. The only way the distributor > >>could be bound by the GPL was if he or she did something that he > >>didn't have the right to do without the GPL to give him or her such a > >>right. > >The GPL gives me the right to distribute modified versions _only if >I > >comply with the GPL_. And GPL forbids further restrictions when > >distributing. > I realize that. But that has nothing to do with what I said, which > analyzes only those rights you have without agreeing to the GPL by > virtue of the fact that you possess the work and were not subject to > any restrictions in the process of acquiring and using it. I just don't get it. If I get sources to foo under the GPL, I can spindle and mutilate them to my heart's content at home. But as soon as I do distribute it, the GPL is in force. There is no "not bound by the GPL because I'm not doing ..." and then distributing "and I wasn't bound by GPL, so..." > >If your bizarre interpretation was right, no software licence at all > >would have any validity. In particular, I'd be more than very surprised > >if the GPL was so sloppily written. It was written with the input of > >eminent lawyers, after all. > Your generalization doesn't apply because of several major > differences between most software licenses and the GPL: > > 1) Most software licenses do not grant everyone the right to use the > work covered. Irrelevant. > 2) Most software licenses do not grant anyone the right to create > derived works. Irrelevant. > 3) Most software licenses require your assent before you can use the > covered work, in fact, most require your assent before you have the > right to possess the covered work. Don't see the relevance here. Besides, you never "possess" anything, you are just given permision to use. > However, one sticky point is that the GPL talks about 'modifying' a > work. You can create derived works without modifying the original > work and the GPL is unclear in this respect. Right. If I take gcc and make a C# compiler based on it, it is also GPL as far as it is derived (i.e., a substantial ammount of code was pilfered from gcc). No change to gcc needed, just what constitutes a derivative work. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/