IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretation
Posted Aug 18, 2004 15:10 UTC (Wed) by
dkite (guest, #4577)
In reply to:
IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretation by tbird20d
Parent article:
IBM's summary judgment motion
Both the GPL and the original AT&T contract had to do with conditions
where the original works could be used and distributed.
IBM has shown here that the intent of the AT&T contract was simply to
maintain AT&T ownership of the original code, anything else would belong
to and be controlled by IBM. Everyone involved knew what the deal was,
the terms, etc. They paid AT&T presumably for the privilege, and later
paid Novell 10m or so for an irrevocable license. Hence SCO has no
interest at all in any of IBM's code.
The GPL is essentially an agreement where if IBM were to include some
GPL'd code in an application, or built on an existing application, they
would own the code they wrote, but to be able to distribute the whole
they would have to abide by the terms of the GPL, ie. make source code
available.
If IBM didn't like the terms of the GPL, they have two options. Take the
original GPL'd code out and rewrite (the copyright standards of
derivative works applying here), hence owning all the body of code, or
they could negotiate a relicense with the original authors.
IBM indeed says it would be unreasonable to assume an understanding of
the original AT&T contract to be something as broad as what SCO is
saying, especially when the intent of the parties was obvious. However,
say 20 years from now there is a suit where the original parties, you or
I as a developer released some application under GPL, including
contributions from a dozen other developers, and a large corporation
takes our application and starts contributing substantial amounts of
code, each file marked with the GPL. The suit argues ownership and
control, so you or I and the dozen other developers are interviewed. The
intent of the GPL was clear to all who contributed.
What IBM said doesn't invalidate the GPL. IBM is only stating that you
cannot impose a drastic and unreasonable interpretation on contract
wording.
The GPL is very clear in it's intent.
Derek
(
Log in to post comments)
