5 ms·

>It's not entirely clear with the GPLv2 that that's the case. I hear this argument a lot. It is certainly intended to be the case as it's the whole point of t

>It's not entirely clear with the GPLv2 that that's the case. I hear this argument a lot. It is certainly intended to be the case as it's the whole point of the GPL. VMWare is, at the very least, in clear violation of the spirit of the GPL. If it's not the case, as ruled by German courts, then the GPLv2 is useless and free software will be in deep trouble. In the US the courts have found that GPLv2 is pretty clear on this (and judges don't like those that try to find loopholes) with successful compliance cases like the Linksys WRT54G router firmware. >this is merely the FSF's opinion It's a pretty important opinion since they wrote it and know what the intent of the legalese was.

Tomte 10y ago
And usually ambiguities are evaluated in favor of the party who did not write the text.
cmurf 10y ago
Something seems specious where proof of authorship is required for standing in a case. The injured party may not be the copyright holder as much as it is the entire community or even other copyright holders.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Not authorship per se, but copyrights to source code was pretty much the entire linchpin of SCO v. IBM.[1] I think I remember SCO trying your argument at some point (as they were wont to do), and if so it obviously didn't work. The law generally doesn't support being offended on behalf of someone else. What aspect do you think is specious? 1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml
- daxelrod 10y ago
  If you wish to sue someone for copyright infringement, you usually need to hold the copyright in question to have standing. If you have been injured in some other way, you are welcome to try to sue for that instead.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> It's a pretty important opinion since they wrote it and know what the intent of the legalese was. The intent of a license is defined by the person offering the license, not the person writing the license that they choose to offer.
nitrogen 10y ago
This interpretation could imply that any software running on a GPL OS that lacks memory protection would also be forced to be GPL. The GPL has exceptions for GPL programs using proprietary OS components, but does it have the reverse? It's easy enough to claim that a kernel module is more analogous to a program running on an OS than to a library linked into a program.
prutschman 10y ago
The relevant part of the GPL applies only when a derivative work is created. The determination of what constitutes a derivative work is the domain of copyright law. If a piece of software is not legally a copy of or a derivative work of a GPL-covered work, the GPL simply doesn't apply.

Tomte 10y ago

And usually ambiguities are evaluated in favor of the party who did not write the text.

cmurf 10y ago

Something seems specious where proof of authorship is required for standing in a case. The injured party may not be the copyright holder as much as it is the entire community or even other copyright holders.

rhizome 10y ago
Not authorship per se, but copyrights to source code was pretty much the entire linchpin of SCO v. IBM.[1] I think I remember SCO trying your argument at some point (as they were wont to do), and if so it obviously didn't work. The law generally doesn't support being offended on behalf of someone else. What aspect do you think is specious? 1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml
daxelrod 10y ago
If you wish to sue someone for copyright infringement, you usually need to hold the copyright in question to have standing. If you have been injured in some other way, you are welcome to try to sue for that instead.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It's a pretty important opinion since they wrote it and know what the intent of the legalese was. The intent of a license is defined by the person offering the license, not the person writing the license that they choose to offer.

nitrogen 10y ago

This interpretation could imply that any software running on a GPL OS that lacks memory protection would also be forced to be GPL. The GPL has exceptions for GPL programs using proprietary OS components, but does it have the reverse? It's easy enough to claim that a kernel module is more analogous to a program running on an OS than to a library linked into a program.

prutschman 10y ago

The relevant part of the GPL applies only when a derivative work is created. The determination of what constitutes a derivative work is the domain of copyright law. If a piece of software is not legally a copy of or a derivative work of a GPL-covered work, the GPL simply doesn't apply.