Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in2.uu.net!192.89.123.24!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!news.kbfi.ee!kadri.ut.ee!haldjas.folklore.ee!sander From: Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: GPL Date: 7 Feb 1997 10:44:39 GMT Organization: Tartu University, Estonia Lines: 63 Message-ID: <5df12n$ckb@kadri.ut.ee> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <32ED1866.34F02393@indiana.edu> <32F167BB.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <0rnuc5.3e1.ln@zen> <5cvodo$hme@omega.gmd.de> <m23evgchq9.fsf@maxwell.sfhs.floyd.k12.ky.us> <5d2jpo$bb1@omega.gmd.de> <LJn9y0gTzz1L091yn@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: haldjas.folklore.ee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961203] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:157731 comp.os.linux.networking:68087 comp.os.linux.advocacy:83460 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2458 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:52568 comp.os.os2.advocacy:267147 Mouth of the South <mouth@ibm.net> wrote: : In article <5d2jpo$bb1@omega.gmd.de>, Holger Veit <veit@gmd.de> wrote: : >a trial in court to check the validity of GPL. BTW: in Germany, there does : >not exist such a legal construct of a "software license" (you can buy or : >lease software, but not "license" it - this is a typical American legal : >thing), so general, international copyright rules apply here : And international copyright law is much the same from one developed country : to another, including the US. What the hell? Copyright law the same everywhere? And that says someone from the US :-) where the things have been wrong and upside-down most of the time. Perhaps US is not a "developed country"? Why do you think US is the only place where there is a "Supreme" Court which passes such decisions that suit it (or the businessmen) the best on the moment? : >approximately say: this company has used non-patentable algorithms from : >public sources, and modified them, which is their own intellectual property, : Code covered by GPL is neither public domain nor "public sources." It is : COPYRIGHTED and ownership belongs to the copyright holder who copyrighted : it under local copyright law, which is turn is recognized by the copyright : laws of other countries. Under the terms of the GPL, the holder of the : copyright authorizes or "licenses" others to use the software, but only if : they are agreeable to the terms of the "license." If they do not agree, : or if local law does not permit them to agree, the right to copy and create : derivative works which of course can only belong to the original copyright : holder, unless otherwise agreed in writing, remains in full force and is : in no way diminished. As you were told there is no such thing as a licences. So the point about what GPL says about licences is moot. The German courts will not give a shit about it. They *do not* exist. So on what did you agree (or not agree)? : So whether German law permits software "licenses" or not, no company in : Germany can create derivative works from copyrighted code, which in our : case happens to be "recopyable" under terms of the GPL, and then assert : that the derivative work has become their "intellectual property" by : virtue of the changes they made. That is the very core of copyright of : copyright law. In fact that's why it's called "copyright," because it : simply means who has the "right to copy." Sure. They will happily allow you to distribute the part that is *not* derived. You certainly would be allowed to distribute (or not to distribute) your part of it just as you like it. The problem is not with the whole derivative work but the changes to it. Which undeniably are their own. : If it was as you suggest where anyone could make and resell derivative : works without permission of the original copyright holder, then copyright : protection would be utterly useless. We can be confident that the German : publishing industry and legal establishment would never tolerate such a : state of affairs. They surely will support the manufacturer of the embeded processor gcc - who would doubt that they may do with their work whatever they want (= not allow you to distribute it). Sander