Re: [ba-ohs-talk] More bad news about the GPL License: Fwd: [Gxl] GCC Licencing and XML extracts
From this page http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
mentioned on slashdot.org this morning, we get the following: (01)
"But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright
alone gives them . These companies say their software is ``licensed'' to
consumers, but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows
nothing about. Software you're not allowed to understand, for example,
often requires you to agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't
prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is just a contract term you agree
to as a condition of getting the software when you buy the product under
shrink wrap in a store, or accept a ``clickwrap license'' on line.
Copyright is just leverage for taking even more away from users.
The GPL, on the other hand, subtracts from copyright rather than adding to
it. The license doesn't have to be complicated, because we try to control
users as little as possible. Copyright grants publishers power to forbid
users to exercise rights to copy, modify, and distribute that we believe
all users should have; the GPL thus relaxes almost all the restrictions of
the copyright system. The only thing we absolutely require is that anyone
distributing GPL'd works or works made from GPL'd works distribute in turn
under GPL. That condition is a very minor restriction, from the copyright
point of view. Much more restrictive licenses are routinely held
enforceable: every license involved in every single copyright lawsuit is
more restrictive than the GPL. " (02)
Doesn't say anything about much *less* restrictive licenses, like LGPL,
BSD, etc. (03)
At 09:09 AM 4/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > "Closed source" being the contrary of "open source",
> > that and "ethics"
> > do not go together.
>I mean the ethics of non-free software and the abuse
>of our freedom.
> > GCC is the work of the Free Software Movement, but
> > by discussing it
> > under the rubric of "open source" you would tend to
> > lead people to
> > misattribute it to the other movement. Please don't
> > do that.
>My mistake, I should have known.
>Non-Free, propritary and closed-source seem to be the
>same but have different connotations.
>"Open source" tools like the ATT graphvis
>are not free becuase they force you to register each
>patch with them and all Intelletual property rights
>for any changes.
>"You grant to AT&T under any IPR owned or licensable
>by you which in any way relates to your Patches, a
>non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid-up,
>unrestricted, irrevocable license, along with the
>right to sublicense others, to (a) make, have made,
>use, offer to sell, sell and import any products,
>services or any combination of products or services,
>and (b) reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative
>works based on, perform, display and transmit your
>Patches in any media whether now known or in the
>future developed. "
>James Michael DuPont
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more