[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:52:17 +0200

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 12:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > distribution is allowed by section 6.
> >
> > Distribution is allowed by 17 USC 109. And [L]GPL is a joke.
> Said allowed distribution is:
> mv /a /b

Sorta true.

> not
> cp /a /b

That's allowed by the [L]GPL itself. A non-contract simply can't 
restrict my "mv" right. A non-contract can't prevent me from 
creating a whole bunch of binary-only copies incorporating GPL'ed 
original and/or derivative work(s) and distribute them under 17 
USC 109 using my own very restrictive contractual terms meant to 
protect my modifications (compilations aside for a moment) as 
trade secrets (clauses like "No Reverse Engineering", etc).

> which isn't allowed by default in copyright law.

Well, not quite.

> Oh, and IBM really doesn't seem to agree with you, and seems to be

Yeah. Devil theories aside for a moment, IBM calls the GPL 
"conscious public covenant". Frankly, I have no idea what that is.

> pushing its (and FSFs, and !yours) view by claiming copyright
> infringement from SCO for adding restrictions...

Bah. Make Your Bet, rms.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]