Re: Fw: FW: Re: Proprietary Modules and GPL API (from postnuke devel list)

GNU/FSF Webmaster Ray Soucy Writes:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Discussion like this comes from dangerous propaganda terms like
> "Intelectual Property", where people confuse patents and copyright,
> et. al.  So we end up with many people claiming to be experts, but
> basing their knowledge on [inaccurate] assumptions.
> 
> I don't recomend using the LGPL.  The LGPL is a method to get
> propritairy programers to see the benifits of Free Software, and
> hopefully write GPL'd code.  The LGPL is much weaker than the GPL in
> defending the Freedoms of the user.
> 
> The copyright holder, assuming that the copyright holder has legal
> grounds to enforce his/her copyright (see previous discussion) can
> release "copies" under any license he/she wishes.  I can release one
> copy under the GPL, another under the LGPL, another under the BSD
> license, another under the apache license, and so on.  Each license 
is
> specific to the "copy" it's distributed with.  In terms of the GPL,
> the GPL attahes itself to the origional copy, and any further works
> made from that copy.  This is important.  A license giving the right
> to make copies, should definately work like the GPL, without 
attaching
> a license to any derivitive copies, you might as well not have a
> license at all.
> 
> If a developer, or developers wanted to release something under
> different licenses, they need each copyright holder's permission to
> release it under a new license, this is another reason why assigning
> copyright to the FSF is a good idea, the FSF can keep people from
> doing this to your software if you assign the copyright to them.
> 
> A re-write would only be required if the copyright holders did not
> agree to release under the LGPL.
> 
> rps
> 
>    Thought you might be interested in seeing this. Your thoughts 
could 
>    influence the decision of hundreds of GPL programmers ;)
> 
>    http://www.xaraya.com/newsgroups/thread.php?group=xaraya.curiosa
> 
>    Gregory Remington
>    [email protected]
> 
>    ------------- Forwarded message follows -------------
> 
> 
>    > The only way for us to get
>    > postnuke to the lgpl level would be to completely rewrite all 
the 
>    code
>    from
>    > scratch or to get every person who has ever worked on the code 
base 
>    to
>    give
>    > over their right to the gpl to a single party.
> 
>    Not necessarily true. Only the code currently in use needs to be 
>    considered.
>    Also keep in mind that this is the decision of the copyright 
owner, 
>    the GNU
>    GPL is just a license between the copyright owner and another 
entity, 
>    so
>    whoever owns the copyright to the code gets to decide on the 
license.
> 
>    In a collaborative environment people get confused over who is 
the 
>    copyright
>    holder of what, but it gets easier when you look into copyright 
law. 
>    For a
>    work to be copyrightable it must be significant and original 
>    expression -
>    i.e. a three line function I come up with isn't copyrightable, 
nor is 
>    a soup
>    recipe; however a recipe collection (or complete program) is. 
This 
>    already
>    significantly cuts the chaff of who can claim a thumb in the pie. 
In 
>    the
>    case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is 
>    considered
>    to be the author. Included in the definition of a "work made for 
hire" 
>    is:
>    "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
>        a contribution to a collective work
>        a translation
>        a supplementary work"
> 
>    Basically if there really is a legal entity known as "Post Nuke" 
>    whoever
>    they may be are the copyright owners of the vast majority of the 
>    codebase.
>    (On the other hand, if there isn't an actual legal entity 
called "Post 
>    Nuke"
>    then everything you guys have done have basically been donated to 
the 
>    public
>    domain.)
> 
>    See:
>    http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html
>    http://www.ksu.edu/academicservices/intprop/webtutor/tsld002.htm
>    http://www.intelproplaw.com/
>    with many links at http://www.intelproplaw.com/Copyright/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 
<http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
> 
> iD8DBQE+a4syqtFuEOIMGE4RAn8kAJ0dqTPmQpmqWfB5/a4inYLUPbCtyACcCBN/
> c8LVk5nnw75ybTx6te0i2Jo=
> =XG6I
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

====================================================
Gregory Remington | Marketing R&D | http://pnapi.com
====================================================