Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Key battles forge fate of free software (SiliconValley)
Dan Gillmor looks at the SCO and OpenTV cases. "If the FSF is right that OpenTV is violating the GPL, and if this behavior is found to be legal by the courts, the entire free-software and open-source movements could be derailed. Agreeing to share the improvements you make in the GPL-licensed software you've used is an essential part of the larger ecosystem."
(Log in to post comments)
Key battles forge fate of free software (SiliconValley) Posted May 21, 2003 15:35 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Dan Gillmor writes:But there's a string attached: If you create software that is derived from software previously licensed under the GPL, you must release what you've written under the same license.I think his interpretation of GPL is incorrect. Firstly, GPL only covers the act of distributing, not creation, of the software. Secondly, GPL provides alternatives to giving the source code to "any third party". Commercial distributions are allowed to limit distribution of the source code to the recipients of the executables. I'm not saying that OpenTV is not violating the GPL, but it's not clear from what Dan Gillmor says.
Key battles forge fate of free software (SiliconValley) Posted May 21, 2003 20:01 UTC (Wed) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] Although IANAL, I think your second point is a tad unclear. As a modifier, then distributor of software covered by the GPL, you can, as you say, limit the distribution of the source code to those who receive binaries. But you can *only* limit your *own* distribution of the source code to those you have given binaries. Because you cannot change the licenses from the GPL to anything more restrictive (from the perspective of the recipient), you cannot restrict the recipients' right to redistribute the source code to any parties they so desire, even to the world via anonymous ftp.Just my $0.02
What the GPL says about that Posted May 21, 2003 22:59 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
What the GPL says about that Posted May 22, 2003 0:30 UTC (Thu) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] Guess I stand corrected. (I hadn't read it in a while.) I, for one, am glad to see it lean more in the direction of code availability than even I thought. I've been a GPL fanatic for many years, now. I think I'll take some time to read it again. And now, for your enjoyment, an excerpt from my email signature: GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secret
What the GPL says about that Posted May 22, 2003 21:24 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] No, you were right. Gillmor's statement has a minor flaw. It shouldn't say one is required to release the code under GPL. It should say if one releases the code, it must be under GPL.I can modify the Linux kernel and keep it for my own use and you have no right to the source code for my changes. And I can give you a copy of my modified kernel, with complete source code, along with a GPL license, and I still don't have to give my source code to some third person (You could, give it to him, though).
Why would OpenTV want to go to court? Posted May 21, 2003 18:17 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I've seen no indication yet that OpenTV would want to go to court. I expect they'd eventually settle, just as everyone else has.Bruce
|
|
||||||||||||