Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> > Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> >> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
> >> our code too. That's just fair.
> >
> > I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
> > their rights to their original works.
> 
> There is nothing "slow" involved here.  If you use any copyrightable
> part of GPL licensed software without negotiating a different license,
> you are bound by the full GPL.  As with any other license.

Hey mike4ty4, ignore GNUtian retards. They do want to "liberate" your 
own independent (under copyright law, according to the AFC test) 
computer program works. It's a misuse of copyright. See 

http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf

One can tie oneself in knots trying to make sense of the GPL and the
statements made about it. It ignores provisions of the copyright
statutes that allow the modification or redistribution of works
without permission of the copyright owner (like 17 USC 109 and 117,
fair use aside for a moment).  It talks about "derived" works which
don't seem to be the same as "derivative works." And the explanations
from RMS and others often make little sense, as in the case where
something was a derived work until somebody wrote a non-GPLed math
library API-compatible with the GPLed one.

But here we go (right from the mouth of the GPL "enforcers"):

http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/2006/08/31/#20060831-10_misconceptions_gpl

links to

http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203

which has it in black and white:

-------
This misunderstanding stems from section 2 of the current GPL, which
states only that modified versions of GPL software must also be
licensed under the GPL. However, the section clearly states that if a
program "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works
in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it" and that being on
the same "storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work
under the scope of this License." As Fontana points out, the
definition of a derivative work could be clearer -- and should be in
the third version of the license -- but the general principle is
unmistakable.
-------

So if you want to have real fun, let GNUtian elaborate on their 
crackpot theories of derivative works in software. A+B and all
that. Seriously, see

http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php

----
21. If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the EPL
    and distribute the object code of the module along with the rest
    of the Program, must I make the source code to my module
    available in accordance with the terms of the EPL?

    No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the
    Program.

 [...]

26. Some free software communities say that linking to their code
    automatically means that your program is a derivative work. Is
    this the position of the Eclipse Foundation?

    No, the Eclipse Foundation interprets the term "derivative work"
    in a way that is consistent with the definition in the U.S.
    Copyright Act, as applicable to computer software. Therefore,
    linking to Eclipse code might or might not create a derivative
    work, depending on all of the other facts and circumstances.

27. I"m a programmer not a lawyer, can you give me a clear cut
    example of when something is or is not a derivative work?

    If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few
    minor revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you"ve
    written your own Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to
    implement functionality not currently in Eclipse, then it is not
    a derivative work. Scenarios between those two extremes will
    require you to seek the advice of your own legal counsel in
    deciding whether your program constitutes a derivative work.
----

#27's "scenarios between those two extremes" is about the AFC test.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html 

regards,
alexander.