Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:G1jIn.16893$Ak3.8753@newsfe16.iad...
> On 5/17/2010 5:39 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
> > Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get
> > the Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it. Now you
> > have said many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying
> > the GPL program. So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is
> > legitimately modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form
> > the improved program. You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where
> > you can sue the distributor since he has published the link to the
> > source meeting the GPL requirement
>
> Sorry, I can't figure out from your description above who the
> actors are and what they are doing.

Have you been conveniently stupid all your life or has that happened 
recently.  I am sure you get the point, having been around this forum for so 
long, but I will go more slowly:

> The GPL requires that the
> conveyor of a covered work provide the source code for the
> version of the work being conveyed.

Exactly.  So to please the SFLC, Rjack conveys the original version of, say, 
Busy Box, by posting the source somewhere.


> The GPL permits changes to
> be made without restriction or requirement to a copy of the
> work which is not conveyed. Someone may add a non-free piece to
> a GPLed work, but may then not convey the combined work. So if
> a "customer" wishes to modify a GPLed work, he is allowed to do
> so - indeed, I imagine there are any number of companies who
> make in-house modifications to GPLed works and never convey
> those works, and so never provide the source for their changes.

But the GPL goes beyond the pall here.  Rjack has simply augmented the 
program that was properly conveyed to the end user by means of adding in his 
improvements and authorizes the end user to use the combination via some 
proprietary license that restricts the user from further redistribution of 
the combination.  That is a legitimate action under the copyright laws and 
under the GPL as I have framed it.  The mere fact that Rjack has found a 
very efficient way of modifying the end user's copy of the GPL work, i.e., a 
recompilation, is immaterial, at least to the copyright laws.


> Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
> of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
> without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users,
> once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under
> the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
> freedom.
That is, of course, a joke, but, even so, the end user is just as free as 
Rjack to use the Busy Box software in the same form as used by Rjack.

> > > The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
> > > right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
> > > it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
> > > rights.
> >
> > Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user
> > is not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either. It is pretty
> > much like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not
> > putting the whole thing under the GPL. Who cares what the user does with
> > the original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that. The
> > key is being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that
> > does something new.
>
> As I said, the GPL requires that the someone who conveys a covered
> work provide the source to the version being conveyed, so I don't
> know what you mean by "selling a program that uses some GPL program
> as a base but not putting the whole thing under the GPL". That is an
> infringement of the copyright of the base program.

Well, you can say that all day, but it has no effect.  You say that a user 
may take a GPL work and modify it and use it himself with no obligations to 
anyone and that is the key to the issue.  Say that some company wishes to to 
just that, for example Google.  Now there is no "Google user" per se, just a 
company that employs a lot of people who know how to code.  So one or more 
of them make the modifications and receive payment for those services in 
doing that work.  The result is conveyed to Google as a legal entity and no 
disclosure is made of the exact modifications in use.  That is no different 
than an end user hiring Rjack to make necessary modifications and receiving 
the result and not disclosing any source.