NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/4352

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-09 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4352 talk.philosophy.misc:3246 misc.legal:22294
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!burley
From: [e-mail] (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSFReferences: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>Distribution:
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:33:06
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 8 Jan 93 19:08:39

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   In other words, the GPL (for this kind of problem) adheres to the
   copy, not to the program.  In this respect it differs from the
   ^^^^
   copyright.  If you own the program, you can make new copies under any
   conditions (GPL or not) you like.

This seems to be part of some of the perceived confusion.  [How's that
for trying to appear uncertain?]

I think instead of "copy" you, and perhaps others in this debate, mean
to say "derived work".

Specifically, the GPL adheres, in the cases being addressed here, to
the work derived from various sources, at least one of which was originally
published under terms of the GPL, thus requiring the entire derived work
to do so.  However, the separate works may be published by their owners
in whatever manner they choose (PD, proprietary, or whatever).

Suppose I write a body of code I'll call K.  It's some kind of software
package.  Part of K includes a modified version of GNU EMACS.  I decide
to release all of K to the public domain, and explicitly state that.
The code in K that represents modifications to GNU EMACS (or include enough
of GNU EMACS to make it legally fall under the GPL) is _both_ under the
public domain (on its own) _and_ under the GPL (when forming the derived
work of GNU EMACS + part-of(K)).

Thus, users of the derived work, i.e. that part of K that is the modified
GNU EMACS (call it KEMACS), can always be assured that they can get all of
the source code used to make KEMACS (or any derivative, i.e. a port by
someone) according to the GPL.

However, anyone can take part-of(K), i.e. that part of KEMACS that is
in public domain (not part of GNU EMACS), claim they wrote it, derive a
work from it, and sell only proprietary binaries of it, such that I, as
the original author of K, cannot effectively service such derivative
works.

Meanwhile, programmers can service users of KEMACS and derivative works
because they'll have access to the source code for KEMACS -- both the GPL-
protected, GNU-EMACS-derived original portion, and the part-of(K) portion
placed in the public domain.

No way can the FSF assert ownership of any code in K via the GPL.  (It
can try to make a claim in court like anyone can, but the GPL does not give
it special permission to do so just because I included PD code for K
with GNU EMACS code to ship the derivative KEMACS.)

Nothing the GPL says can wrest my ownership of my code away from me,
even if I ship a work derived from GPL-protected code plus my own code.
However, if I do that, I've accepted the GPL requirements for use of the
protected code, which allows people to whom I ship the derived work access
to my own source code (the part that went into the derived product) because
I have to license the derived work under the terms of the GPL.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    [e-mail]
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) [e-mail]