Comments on: GPL fine print http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/ Mon, 07 May 2012 20:05:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ben http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5639 ben Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:28:09 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5639 Yes, but a court might look at how both parties to the license agreement could reasonably have interpreted it and in that instance the opinions of the body that originated the template license could have some sway. Yes, but a court might look at how both parties to the license agreement could reasonably have interpreted it and in that instance the opinions of the body that originated the template license could have some sway.

]]> By: vespas http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5522 vespas Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:00:11 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5522 Since we are talking about fine points of the GPL, I've been wondering, if a GPL'd project likes a bit of GPL'd code from another project and they copy something as small as a function, do they need to provide an explicit reference to the originating project? Or is providing the source enough to satisfy the GPL? Since we are talking about fine points of the GPL, I’ve been wondering, if a GPL’d project likes a bit of GPL’d code from another project and they copy something as small as a function, do they need to provide an explicit reference to the originating project? Or is providing the source enough to satisfy the GPL?

]]> By: Nat Friedman http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5494 Nat Friedman Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:28:16 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5494 It's not up to the FSF to interpret the license; that's up to the courts. Whatever the FSF says, the license says something else. The FSF's opinions do not have force of law. Also, not everyone keeps changelogs. It’s not up to the FSF to interpret the license; that’s up to the courts. Whatever the FSF says, the license says something else. The FSF’s opinions do not have force of law.

Also, not everyone keeps changelogs.

]]> By: Anonymous http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5493 Anonymous Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:26:56 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5493 Others have already addressed the second and third oddities. Regarding the first, the FSF has explicitly stated that they consider any form of changelog-style information sufficient, regardless of whether such information appears *in* the changed files. The GPLv2 pre-dates the widespread use of version control. Others have already addressed the second and third oddities. Regarding the first, the FSF has explicitly stated that they consider any form of changelog-style information sufficient, regardless of whether such information appears *in* the changed files. The GPLv2 pre-dates the widespread use of version control.

]]> By: Nat Friedman http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5490 Nat Friedman Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:05:43 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5490 True. I will clarify that in my post. Thanks. True. I will clarify that in my post. Thanks.

]]> By: Russ http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5489 Russ Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:02:57 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5489 Your (3) is only required if you distribute binaries without source. The binaries must be accompanied with that written offer. If you distribute source with your binaries, you are already covered. Your (3) is only required if you distribute binaries without source. The binaries must be accompanied with that written offer. If you distribute source with your binaries, you are already covered.

]]> By: Joe Buck http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5486 Joe Buck Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:24:16 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5486 I think that the most common violation of the license is people putting up a binary-only tarball with the intent of providing source later, without realizing that either the written offer or the source has to there immediately when the binary is made available for distribution, and the penalty is revocation of the license. GPLv3 is actually a lot more lenient about accidental violations. I think that the most common violation of the license is people putting up a binary-only tarball with the intent of providing source later, without realizing that either the written offer or the source has to there immediately when the binary is made available for distribution, and the penalty is revocation of the license. GPLv3 is actually a lot more lenient about accidental violations.

]]> By: Joe Buck http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5485 Joe Buck Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:18:58 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5485 I don't recall where I heard it, but it's been claimed that the clause requiring notification that files have been changed might be necessary to make GPLv2 valid in countries with "moral rights" language in their copyright laws (so changes that break a program aren't mistakenly attributed to the original programmer, damaging his/her reputation). I don’t recall where I heard it, but it’s been claimed that the clause requiring notification that files have been changed might be necessary to make GPLv2 valid in countries with “moral rights” language in their copyright laws (so changes that break a program aren’t mistakenly attributed to the original programmer, damaging his/her reputation).

]]> By: Peter http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/gpl-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-5483 Peter Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:41:24 +0000 http://nat.org/blog/?p=1391#comment-5483 The second item is not usually a major concern, as few programs normally print or display the described notice. This appears mostly to ensure that such a notice is not removed in a modified copy of the program. The second item is not usually a major concern, as few programs normally print or display the described notice. This appears mostly to ensure that such a notice is not removed in a modified copy of the program.

]]>