jim@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Jim Helman) (07/27/89)
Everyone here is assuming that the libg++ copyleft has legal force. If I told you here that by reading this message, you are implicitly accepting a licensing agreement which requires you to take everything that resides on the same disk as this message, place it under copyleft and send me a copy, would everyone believe it? Hell, even if only 1 in 1,000 fell for it, it might be worth while ;). Copyright law is well established, even for relatively recent developments such as software. However, the force of "shrink-wrap" licenses such as the GNU copyleft are not nearly as well established. Personally, I doubt that the copyleft contagion would be held valid in the case of linking into a standard library such as libg++. Plausibly, a shrink-wrap license could legally forbid the distribution of a program which includes part of a licensed product. But to force restrictions (copyleft) on someone's C++ source code, which is itself in no way a derivative of libg++, goes far beyond anything that (to my knowledge) has been established by the courts. In some circumstances, it's patently (ahem!) absurd. For example, if I linked a program with libg++ and "distributed" it by giving an executable copy to a few friends, this could be read as a violation of the copyleft unless I now distribute my source code under copyleft to anyone who wants it. In others cases (the ones for which I believe it was intended), it's more reasonable, but I still doubt that the entire copyleft would hold up. For example, if I linked a program with libg++ and commercially distributed it for $$$$, this would violate the copyleft. If it came to trial, such a violation of the copyleft license might result in an order to cease distribution, but I seriously doubt that it would result in the forced licensing of my source code under copyleft. Contrary to some recent opinions and to the tone of the preceding, I think that GNU is a great idea. It has been very productive. And, I would be happy to see my tax dollars going to it. I obviously don't subscribe to the FSF political line on the copylefting of standard libraries, but the copyleft has proved very useful in keeping improvements and ports to GNU software available to everyone. Hopefully, someone will produce a PUBLIC DOMAIN version of libg++, so that people who can't afford the AT&T extortion and aren't able or willing to accept copyleft, can use C++. DISCLAIMER: This is all sheer speculation. Don't believe a word I say. I'm no lawyer. Joe Isuzu is my grandson. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics P.O. Box 10494 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94309 (jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-4940
malczews@girtab.usc.edu (Frank Malczewski) (07/28/89)
Just how "legal" would it be to be selling versions of bison, flex, etc. as ported to a particular cpu? [he asks innocently, having just seen an ad for such] -- Frank Malczewski (malczews@girtab.usc.edu)
jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) (07/29/89)
> Have these copyrights been registered with the copyright office?
Last I heard in the US one doesn't have to register a copyright for it to
be valid, until one needs to go to court to defend it. Last thing the
copyright office wants is for everyone to send them listings of their
software.
Just creating a substantially new work and putting a copyright notice on it
is enough to give you a valid copyright.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, never will be.jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (07/30/89)
In article <6590218@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: >Just creating a substantially new work and putting a copyright notice on it >is enough to give you a valid copyright. Just creating a substantially new work, PERIOD, is enough, so long as you don't distribute it without out the copyright notice. OK, now, back to C++... v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) (08/01/89)
>Just how "legal" would it be to be selling versions of bison, flex, etc. as >ported to a particular cpu? [he asks innocently, having just seen an ad for >such] Not a lawyer, so I can't say about "legal", but I do believe the Gnu terms prohibits "selling" a copy of their work, while allowing a reasonable fee for the act of transferring a physical copy of the work, and allowing consultants to charge for porting to a new machine, as long as they abide by the other Gnu restrictions. Maybe if you "bought" from this company the "bison", "flex", etc they send you come packed in shrink wrap saying your money pays for the port and/or physical act of transferance, and you promise to abide by the Gnu rules if you open the package. Or maybe they have found a way to cheat the rules, or maybe they just don't care. Has anybody in net land sent these people any money, and can tell us what it bought?