Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Its not hard to grasp. Its what the GPL says. It does not protect the copyright holder. It protects the code.
    The LAW protects the copyright holder. The copyright holder has the right to do anything, period.

    The GPL only GRANTS rights to people who are NOT copyright holders, and thus don't have any rights. If you receive a piece of GPL code, then you are allowed to redistribute it, if you comply with the license.

    The copyright holder doesn't need a license to let him do this. He already has the right to do whatever he wants.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      I don't see how you could get that much convolution out of what the GPL actually says. It's quite clear and I don't see any other way to understand it then what it says. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think you guys are stretching. The GPL doesnt say anything half as much as what you just wrote. It's a whole lot simpler then that if you8 take what was written literally.

      EDIT: It's no wonder there are so many thousands of GPL violations. It seems to be a general agreement that the copyright holder doesnt have to abide by the license even though it addresses that specifically in simple terms. I'm stumped. I mean I just reviewed the GPL again just to look over it once more and I came out of it with exactly the same interpretation as before. My mind is not changed one tiny bit.
      That is because we are not talking about the GPL specifically but copyright, which is the framework that the GPL resides in and has to work with. You are the one stretching by assigning the GPL powers it can not possible hold as it would go against the grain of copyright law. No wonder you keep seeing all of these strange phantom violations of the license.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        From what I can tell, the copyright owner may create a license in which it is said that anyone who wants to modify the code needs to dance a jig for an hour before doing so.
        http://bugmenot.com/terms.php
        You agree never to access the internet while not wearing happy pants.
        A real life example, while not exactly the same scenario, it is relevant.

        ... and yes, I'm wearing happy pants...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          As long as the terms of the GPL code base are abided by. You can't simply decide that the GPL doesnt apply to you.
          The GPL does never apply to the author of the code, because the GPL grants (extra) rights to non-authors on top of the legal rights they might already have (things like fair use, citation, the right to make backups, etc.), while the author already has all possible rights to do whatever they want with it (including relicensing and/or re-using it in proprietary projects).

          People who aren't authors need permission from the authors to be able to re-license the code, and Canonical's CLA includes exactly that permission.

          BTW: if you really want to understand the GPL, I suggest you first start with understanding the laws & international treaties about authors' rights (which copyright is part of). Without those laws, the GPL (& copyleft) would be meaningless.

          Oh, and another note: laws always overrule contracts (like the GPL), of course.
          Last edited by JanC; 03-20-2013, 02:05 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X