Re: GNU License, Again

[none]

In article <465BDD8A.FE701115@web.de>,
Alexander Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
>
>none Byron Jeff wrote:
>> 
>> In article <4656BD51.742B702B@web.de>,
>> Alexander Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >none Byron Jeff wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original
>> >> GPL code now?
>> >
>> >SCO/GNU postulatus 101.
>> >
>> >http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
>> >(SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us)
>> 
>> That's apples and gorillas sir. The article you quote states that SCO
>> thinks that any original code that has even been developed for Unix
>> systems is a derivative and belongs to them. That far extends beyond the
>> concept that if you take GPL code and extend that code, that the
>> extension is a derivative.

>Read it again.

I did. Same opinion as the first time. The only differences are that SCO
is arguing a contractual link. In addition they are arguing that 
'licenses that covered all "methods" and "concepts" of operating
systems' belongs to them.

The GPL makes no such claims.

>> ><quote>
>> >
>> >GPL
>> >
>> >"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to
>> >Sontag...
>> >
>> ></quote>

>> Not true. If you write an original piece of code that runs on a Linux
>> system, There are no GPL rights imposed upon it.

>Similarly, SCO doesn't claim that code which runs on UNIX system 
>belongs to SCO.

SCO claims that original code that behaves like Unix belongs to them.
That it's a derivative due to concept, not an actual code linkage.

>> OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole
>> different matter.

>Yeah, even if an "extension" is 100% original work and doesn't contain
>any protected elements from GPL'd work you purport it "extends"?

If you write a 100% code fragment that does not operate without the GPL
code base? How can that not be a derivative work? You're right back to
Mike's original argument that if you physically separate two pieces of code, 
then
there cannot be a derivitive relationship between the two. If the new
code doesn't function without the old code, then it's a derivitive work.
The distribution of that work is covered by the license of the original
work.

But that's completely different then if you rewrite the GPL code base
and relicense that. That's your original work, and you can do what you
like with it. SCO was (note this article is dated 4 years ago) arguing
that since you wrote original code using a concept licensed by them,
that your code belongs to them.

I liken it to emplyment contracts that states that all your products
generated under a company's employ, whether or not you used company
resources and time, and whether or not it has anything to do with the
actual company belongs to them. There's no linkage if its a product that
has nothing to do with the company, and was developed on the employee's
own time using the employee's own equipment.

The analogy from the GPL would be an employee using the company systems
and company time to extend the company product, then having the employee
argue that since it's their original work, that the company has no say
so in the distribution of that extended work.

Apples and gorillas, just like I said before.


>Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff.

Now why do you have to resort to insults? Do you really think that's
going to endear someone to your cause? It really makes you look silly. I
would advise that you keep your insults in your pocket and continue to
try to argue the merits.

BAJ