[LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

[Ralf Mardorf]

Raymond Martin wrote:
>
> On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
>
> > > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not
>
> > > > > clear.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL 
> *if* they
>
> > > > don't claim their own code to be GPL.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed 
> to be
>
> > > > GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to
>
> > > > it, not because it contained another author's GPL code.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another
>
> > > > author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the 
> second
>
> > > > option is available to the first author and the courts will have to
>
> > > > sort it.
>
> > >
>
> > > The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code 
> and it
>
> > > still can be put out under another license by the original author. 
> So you
>
> > > are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be
>
> > > considered.
>
> > >
>
> > > It was understood about an original authors copyrights. 
> Nonetheless, any
>
> > > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
>
> > > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another
>
> > > license.
>
> > >
>
> > > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come 
> under
>
> > > GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the
>
> > > GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the
>
> > > original which must be distributed under the same license.
>
> > >
>
> > > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). 
> Read
>
> > > the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or
>
> > > any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
>
> > > License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
>
> > > distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it.
>
> > >
>
> > > End of story.
>
> >
>
> > Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me
>
> > here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes
>
> > but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not 
> accept it
>
> > and break the law instead.
>
> >
>
> > Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since 
> copyright law
>
> > has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the
>
> > issue accordingly.
>
> >
>
> > > Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the
>
> > > code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by 
> their own
>
> > > actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come 
> into
>
> > > effect.
>
> >
>
> > Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your 
> code. It
>
> > is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The 
> law does
>
> > not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The 
> author must
>
> > GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the
>
> > original license.
>
> >
>
> > > If they want to distribute their original code under a different 
> license
>
> > > that can also be done.
>
> Eben Moglen in http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
>
> "Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's 
> substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that 
> the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the 
> GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it.
>
> This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not 
> require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, 
> inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those 
> activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software 
> firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual 
> provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their 
> works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are 
> rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover 
> those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software 
> from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only 
> obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only 
> needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one 
> can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that 
> anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After 
> all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the 
> license text, so everyone is fully informed."
>
> Check that line near the end: "no one can ever redistribute without a 
> license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd 
> software intended to accept the GPL". Now this is a lawyer for free 
> software saying almost exactly
>
> what I have. The assumption is that if you distribute the software 
> then you
>
> are intending to accept the license by doing so. Thus the license 
> applies even
>
> if you are breaking some rule or law regardless of ignorance or intention.
>
> If that is not clear enough I do not know what is. Show me how this 
> leading
>
> legal representative for free software has got it wrong! The evidence is
>
> clear. You distribute it, then you are accepting the license and it 
> applies
>
> to your code.
>
> What possible counter-argument can there be left?
>
> Raymond
>

In Germany the GPL can be NOT capable, but it seems to be that German 
courts tend to see the GPL as capable. This is what I learned by this 
thread, I didn't know it before.
I guess I don't need to translate it the German text. The court of 
Munich complied to the forecasts of Eben Moglen. The court prohibited a 
company to distribute software without stick to (agree to) the GPL.

If you use GPL'd code (and you distribute it), you are forced to stick 
to the GPL. This decided at least one a German court.

"Das Landgericht München I 
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landgericht_M%C3%BCnchen_I> bestätigte in 
einer schriftlichen Urteilsbegründung vom 19. Mai 2004 (Az. 21 O 
6123/03) eine einstweilige Verfügung, mit der einer Firma untersagt 
worden war, Netfilter <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netfilter> ohne 
Einhaltung der GPL weiterzuverbreiten.^[5] 
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-gericht_best.C3.A4tigt-4> 
^[6] 
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-urteil-5> 
Dies war das erste Mal, dass die GPL eine signifikante Rolle in einem 
deutschen Gerichtsverfahren spielte. Das Gericht bewertete die 
Tätigkeiten des Beklagten als Missachtung einiger Bedingungen der GPL 
und somit als Urheberrechtsverletzung." 
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License)

"Dies entsprach genau den Prognosen, die Eben Moglen 
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen> von der FSF für solche Fälle 
zuvor gemacht hatte." 
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License)