[luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

[Jimen Ching]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:
>q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want to integrate
>GPL'd code should have to follow the GPL ruling that the derivative
>source has to be released with the product.  I think it makes it tough
>on companies, but if they want the "free lunch" of using "free code"
>then they should respect the licensing of that "free code".

Companies can use GPL code without deriving from it.  Deriving from GPL
code means the GPL code is modified.  You can develop a product from GPL
code unmodified.  Then you have nothing to contribute back.  Any
additional software in the product must be developped without 'including'
the GPL code.  This is usually how Linux is used.  You can write a
proprietary driver and use a standard Linux kernel.  You don't need to
release the driver source code, but any modifications to the Linux kernel
must be released.

>It's an integrated package, the software in question wouldn't be run by a
>user.

It wouldn't be run by an end-user.  But no end-user would care about the
source code of any other GPL software.  Would your grandma care that she
can get the source code to the Linux kernel?  Maybe, but most likely not.
The people who will use the source code are developers who want to enhance
or modify the source code.  This has always been the case with free
software.

>if someone violates your interest in that something, and you knowingly
>allow them to do it, it kind of seems that it somehow nulls or damages
>your case for maintaining that interest or ownership of something.

I have read that patents don't behave this way.  You can knowingly allow
someone to violate your patent for years and then only file a suit after a
lot of money has been made from the patent.  This is usually how patents
are used.

For trademark violations, if you don't protect it, you lose it.

I'm not sure about copyrights.  I think it falls somewhere in the middle.

>And so the FSF pretty much has to go after anybody they know who violates
>the GPL, in order to maintain it's validity?

I don't know if they have to.  But I know they do...  Each time I see
someone mentioning a GPL violation, I see the FSF immediately going after
the violators.

>Sorry, I get confused easy, a pointer to a website explaining this in
>human speech (ie, not legalese) would be great.
>
>Links to the docs/articles I was reading are:
>http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL

How about http://www.bitlaw.com/?

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org