[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.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169319
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169194
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169188
regards,
alexander.
--
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169297
Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?, Simon Waters, 2004/08/26