GrSecurity Kernel Patches Will No Longer Be Free To The Public

[Zan Lynx]

chithanh sorry no. GPL does not grant rights if you don't agree with it. This is why GPL is a contract. One party has tried to argue in court that since they did not agree with GPL they were not bound by it only to find out that were not legally allowed to have copies of the GPL work without agreeing to GPL contract.

That's interesting. Still a lot of legal room there to work in. In would all depend on WHO performs the copy, wouldn't it. If you get your copy on a DVD from a guy in a black trenchcoat, YOU didn't make a copy. HE did.

And at least in the US, it is explicitly permitted by copyright law to make any such temporary copies or modifications as required to make use of the software. Installing it or loading it into RAM does not create a "copy" under copyright, in the US anyway.

Now, as in your link, the company was distributing copies of GPL software, so they were definitely making copies and bound by GPL as a contract.

[oiaohm]

And at least in the US, it is explicitly permitted by copyright law to make any such temporary copies or modifications as required to make use of the software. Installing it or loading it into RAM does not create a "copy" under copyright, in the US anyway.

Now, as in your link, the company was distributing copies of GPL software, so they were definitely making copies and bound by GPL as a contract.

That case I referenced they also argue that their development where they extend the GPL work was not covered and was kicked by the judge. Yes USA copyright law gives you the right to make copies under particular conditions. But copyright law does not void all contracts. The ruling is GPL is contract so not limited by the conditions of copyright law. The catch with GPL is since the contract includes terms for coping you are not in a normal software license case where you have voided the contract with copyright law allowance so everything in GPL remains in force even using the copyright law clause for copying.

GPL is closer to a NDA contract where you have been authorised to keep copies of stuff under particular conditions and a NDA contract like that cannot be breached by using copyright law either.

So the idea of using USA copyright law to loop hole GPL went straight out the window with that recent USA case. Nothing of copyright law in fact applies to the terms in GPL because GPL does not forbid you from doing what copyright exceptions allow and copyright law does not void conforming contracts. So this means open source licenses since they are contracts of this type are a heck load more enforceable because you have the full force of contract law to enforce them.

That's interesting. Still a lot of legal room there to work in. In would all depend on WHO performs the copy, wouldn't it. If you get your copy on a DVD from a guy in a black trenchcoat, YOU didn't make a copy. HE did.

Problem is this loop hole is not going to work. Being contract GPL allows you to run program but does not allow you to copy program or modify program without agreeing. So GPL bind you to it very quickly due to being contract so is very viral. So yes someone gives you a disk with a GPL program on it and you never modify and you run from disc you were given it on GPL contains a clause that protect you otherwise gpl binds you to the contract.

The act of running the Program is not restricted
This include in gplv2 clause 0 would not need to be there if it was not a contract because copyright law would cover it.

GPLv3 makes this clause way clear.
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
Please note GPLv2 means exactly the same just not written in as clear of english as GPLv3 is. Yes your permission to run is only if the program is unmodified so even in memory patching triggers GPL as a modification so requiring you to agree to terms of GPL unless you can prove the alteration is a independent work.

Since GPL is contract not copyright and contains no clauses preventing you performing the actions allowed under copyright law you have to obey every section of the GPL contract and all loop holes have to be found in the GPL contract wording itself so you cannot argue points of copyright law like fair usage as they don't apply to GPL.

Copyright law kicks in when the license on the product prevents you from doing stuff not a contract that adds extra conditions if you want to do stuff that you can perform at no cost/low cost. So the recent ruling suggests copyright law does not kick in at all on open source licenses. This could include the change to public domain after so many years as well. So open source license might be truly immortal.

GPL contract covering Copying, Modifying and Distribution is a very hard thing to loop hole so more often than not it will be enforceable.

Basically GPL being contract and not breaching any part of copyright law is a big thing. Changes how GPL has to be treated in a big way because you cannot use copyright law to get around GPL any more. Its a mistake to reference copyright law when thinking about GPL from the rulings in that past case.