Re: GPLv3, was: Copying off Time Machine?

On Oct 3, 2012, at 12:14 PM, William H. Magill wrote:

>=20
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Chris Murphy <lists-zXQU9YWDTqjmlV4oE/1sFAC/[email protected]> =
wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Thomas von Hassel wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Chris Murphy <lists-zXQU9YWDTqjmlV4oE/1sFAC/[email protected]> =
wrote:
>>>> How does it stop Apple?
>>=20
>>> There is in fact an explaination directly on bombich.com
>>=20
>> It does not at all explain how GPLv3 stops Apple from including newer =
versions of the same apps they already ship on Mac OS X. Apple already =
must make source code and modifications available for GPLv2 software. It =
doesn't require them at all to consider all of Mac OS X as licensed =
under the GPLv3.
>=20
> Intellectual Property Law is broken. Period.

Let's not expand the conversation by 50 orders of magnitude. It broke =
when software patents were allowed. It has very little to do with =
licensing, which the vast majority of time solves the patent dispute =
problem.

> Any "license" decision is a NEGOTIATION between two (or more) parties.=20=

> A "take it or leave it" License is no license at all. Such a license =
is only resolved when and if one or the other of the parties "go to =
court," and assert the terms of that license have been violated.

What you're trying to say here is obscure. All EULAs are take it or =
leave it.

>=20
>> It doesn't require them at all to consider all of Mac OS X as =
licensed under the GPLv3.
>=20
> This is your interpretation, not that of Apple's Lawyers, nor of the =
court.

You're welcome to provide a citation that Apple's lawyers and "the =
court" have offered an opinion on this.

The GPL is quite clear that it only applies to GPL modified code that =
remains in a binary independent state, which of course rsync is =
exceptionally independent. It's totally stand alone and the OS doesn't =
even use it for anything. It clearly does not attach the GPL to the =
whole of Mac OS X. If Apple incorporated the Finder into rsync, or rsync =
into the Finder, by the fact the Finder is an integral part of Mac OS X, =
they probably would attach the GPL to the whole of Mac OS X. But that is =
not the case. And this hasn't changed in GPLv2 vs v3.

And further in all litigation to date regarding the GPL this particular =
area of what becomes attached to the GPL is not a gray area. Everyone =
knows this.

> Clearly there is "something different" about Version 3 of the GPL, =
otherwise we would still be at Version 2 or even Version 1.

There is. You can't take away the public (user) right to modify GPL =
licensed software, through a hardware lock that prevents modified =
software from running. If you incorporate your patented code into GPL =
code, you extend a license to that patented code - the GPLv2 did this =
with copyrighted code, not patented code. This is part of the =
internationalization aspect of GPLv3 since it's a mostly American =
invention to grant patents to software where previously copyrights were =
sufficient. And it also makes NDA's and various other more strict =
licensing attempts on GPL'd software void.

The idea is that everyone benefits equally. If you want an unequal =
license, don't use the GPL (v3 in particular). That part of the GPL is =
also what's caused Apple to reject GPLv2 apps from the App Store, which =
is that the GPL disallows stricter usage terms than the GPL on GPL'd =
software. Yet Apple's EULA for App Store apps is more usage restrictive =
than the GPL, so the GPL considers Apple's license incompatible.


> Similarly, we have no idea what "arguments" have been presented by all =
of the various patent law-suits against Apple. None of them are ever =
made public.
> However, it does not take much "pseudo legal thinking" to come up with =
ways in which any "patent troll" could head to court... even if the only =
justification is that they "be paid to go away."

I don't know how that relates to the GPL at all.


Chris Murphy=