Tweet
Originally posted by oiaohm
View Post
-
This is where we disagree. As long as no redistribution happens, freedom 1 gives the user explicit permission to do as they like. No "fair use" needed, even if it exists in your jurisdiction.
-
Contract law is the problem. Contract law does not require distribution to activate. Contract law you need the contract to allow any modification. NDA contracts for access to source code works have repeat shown lot stricter conditions. Unless modification is stated as allowed in a contract you are not allowed to-do and then you have to obey the terms of the contract.Originally posted by chithanh View Post
GPL as contract does not contain a unlimited freedom 1. As modifications to the GPL work as contract must be under GPL not matter how they are shipped as part of the work or as independent patch.
The only thing around this GPL contract limitation is copyright fair use but since GPL has been declared a contract that does not apply in the USA any-more and countries with agreements with the USA.
Really go and read gpl 2.0 and attempt to find the line that gives you unlimited freedom 1 and learn it does not exist in the writing of GPL v2 or v3. Unlimited freedom 1 is totally dependant on fair usage in copyright law that does not directly apply to the GPL contract.Comment
-
Yes, I read the license. GPL-2 gives you freedom 1 in clause 2.
The only thing that GPL-2 forbids you in relation to modification is removing copyright notices per 2c) but I do not know of any case where this happened, redistribution didn't happen, and this clause was actually enforced.Comment
-
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.Originally posted by chithanh View Post
This out of section 2 means the GPLv2 license applies to anything derived from the work unless you can prove its a independent work. So you did not read what was just after 2c. This is what makes is a problem to attempt to use some other license other than GPL and makes it illegal to use a different license to GPL unless the conditions of that text is meet. Do note the regardless of who wrote it bit. So if the license of grsecurity patches has some restriction that prevent a person follow GPLv2 combining those patches with the Linux kernel can be breach unless it can be proven that they are not derived works.
GPL forbids a lot more than just altering copyright headers. Contract law brings in entrapment. So you do an action that causes another person to break a contract and you should have know it you are now up creek because you have entrap them into breaking a contract. So grsecurity sends a party patches and they patch a kernel they provide to customers if they cannot provide customers with source code due to grsecurity conditions its both the party who used that kernel and grsecurity who in trouble.Comment
-
I helpfully cut out the relevant part for you.Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
When you do not redistribute, you have full freedom 1 (except removal of copyright notices as pointed out above).Comment
-
chithanh if you do not distribute you do not get to sell the product. Please note you don't have the right to make any copies without the gpl.Originally posted by chithanh View Post
You own 2 computers you copied program from computer 1 to computer 2 you have distributed. The one you are missing you you can not use full freedom 1 for a patch to a gpl work either if you patch evolves making another party break GPL. This was in the recent GPL contract court case.
So it not just redistribute the GPL work it is redistributing anything derived. If you also what to get really hard how did you test your code. You distributed you copied from your harddrive to your ram to test it. Don't agree to GPL don't have the right to copy. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
This title in GPL is very clear. Basically GPL is legally bricked if you don't agree to it. You need to copy to execute unless you are a powerpc cpu that can execute straight from a rom everything else has to obey GPL or else when dealing with a GPL work or break it license.Comment
-
Uh, no. If this is what you actually think, then you need to read up more on copyright law.Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
Also you don't need to agree to the GPL for it to come into effect, it is not a EULA.Comment
-
Except GPL is not copyright law only its contract as well. So limitations of copyright law does not apply to GPL and GPL is not classed the same EULA courts have ruled on that.Originally posted by chithanh View PostComment
-
You have all rights granted to you under the GPL even if you disagree with it. This is a very important distinction from an EULA.
You lose these rights only if you violate the GPL. Violation can happen only with at least one of:- removal of copyright notices
- redistribution
Copying the software from one of your computers to another is not redistribution.Comment
-
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.
It was in this case chithanh were the party attempted to argue they did not have to agree to the GPL contract and got told there were not allowed copies at all if that is the case.
copying, distribution and modification
Gpl the contract trigger when you do any over the above three. So GPL contract violation triggers without redistribution. Modification and internally coping do trigger GPL clauses.
Copying the software from one of your computers to another is not redistribution.
This is not redistribution and would not be covered if the contract of GPL did not clear state coping. Since copying is clearly stated you should not be copying gpl works if you don't agree with the terms of GPL imposed on you.
By the way the copyright notice is only
Copyright (C) yyyy name of author Everything else with GPL turns out to be a comment about a contract or WARRANTY status. It was presumed to be a copyright declare when GPL was thought to be under copyright law. Since GPL is under contract law is a totally different beast. So even the idea of copyright notices is wrong about GPL as GPL is not in fact copyright in many jurisdictions.
Offer and acceptance part of contract law is why GPL is a contract. GPL is a Offer if you choose to accept it you can do everything in the contract if not you have no rights in the contract at all. This is very different to a copyright license where you can in fact argue if terms stand up or not.
A unilateral contract is created when someone offers to do something "in return for" the performance of the act stipulated in the offer.[4] In this regard, acceptance does not have to be communicated and can be accepted through conduct by performing the act.[
Unilateral contract is the type of contract GPL is. So copying the GPL works is agreeing to the terms of the contract even if you are just copying it on your own machine. Basically you agree to GPL when you copy, distribute or modify. Do any 1 and you are bound by the terms of GPL by the recent USA court ruling.
Disagree with GPL hope you don't end up in court because act stipulated for showing agreement in to the gpl offer is copy, distribution or modification so once you have performed one those you are agreed to the contract and to follow all terms.
Comment
Comment