| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski |
| 2 |
<jeremi.piotrowski@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> They could, but I was under the impression that by using licensed software |
| 5 |
> you agree to follow it's terms. And the binding nature of licenses is |
| 6 |
> codified in copyright law. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
You don't need a license to use software. You need a license to copy software. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Copyright law talks of licenses. Linus' talks about the license under |
| 12 |
> which the kernel is licensed. Ergo, seems to me as though his words |
| 13 |
> should have some authority, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
All law talks of people. I'm a person. Therefore it sounds like my |
| 16 |
words should have some authority. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That really is no different an argument. You can't just stick |
| 19 |
anything you want under the heading "license agreement" and enforce |
| 20 |
it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> but I won't argue that. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Uh, you just did. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>> And none of them say a word about linking creating a derived work. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> The FSF says that and who knows if they're actually right, but I believe |
| 30 |
> so far everyone generally complies with their interpretation. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Well, you're talking to somebody who doesn't, so "everyone" is a bit |
| 33 |
of a strong word. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>> And would we really want to live in a world where they did? Do you |
| 37 |
>> really want to need permission to use a product in a manner the author |
| 38 |
>> didn't originally intend? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Proprietary licenses already say that I can't do that, and it's the free |
| 41 |
> licenses that tell me I can do whatever I want as long as I release the |
| 42 |
> sources. Sounds reasonable to me. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I see, and because proprietary licenses purport to do all kinds of |
| 45 |
horrible things, we ought to emulate them? I don't suggest that those |
| 46 |
licenses are any more legal with regard to these specific details. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> But again, I'm speaking mostly out of common sense and opinion here. |
| 50 |
> Neither one of us is going to go around citing cases and laws as that |
| 51 |
> would be a waste of bandwidth. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
It wouldn't waste much bandwidth, because there aren't any relevant |
| 54 |
laws or cases. That is my whole point. I can't cite them, because |
| 55 |
they don't exist. In the absence of law, there is liberty. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
The onus is really on you to prove that somebody ISN'T allowed to do |
| 58 |
something, not for them to prove that they can. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
>> All they have to do is have the human-readable license say non-GPL, |
| 63 |
>> and have it report GPL to the kernel, and not ship the source. The |
| 64 |
>> only recourse anybody has is to sue them, and it is doubtful that a |
| 65 |
>> court is going to force them to comply, as they clearly indicated |
| 66 |
>> their intent to not release the code as GPL. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> On the other hand they would also be clearly indicating to others that |
| 69 |
> their code is GPL (if they did in fact add MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")). I may |
| 70 |
> be wrong here, but if that is not in the least bit ambiguous then shoot me. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
I guess that is why I said that it is a bit ambiguous in the part that |
| 73 |
you chose not to quote: |
| 74 |
You might be able to get away with redistributing the blob since the |
| 75 |
situation is a bit ambiguous, but I doubt the driver manufacturers |
| 76 |
care that much if you redistribute their blobs. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
Here is the thing, you can use the law as a sword or a shield. You |
| 79 |
want to use it as a sword, which puts the onus on you to prove that |
| 80 |
the law says what you think it says to take any action at all. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
Sure, if you argue the driver is really GPL you might be able to |
| 83 |
defend yourself from a copyright claim by the author of the driver. |
| 84 |
However, they really don't care if you redistribute it anyway. On the |
| 85 |
other hand, if you want to force them to release the source to their |
| 86 |
driver you have an uphill battle. Even if they released their driver |
| 87 |
under the GPL that STILL doesn't compel them to release the source to |
| 88 |
it. It just means that YOU have to give anybody you distribute the |
| 89 |
driver to any sources you were given. Licenses are granted to the |
| 90 |
recipient of code. They don't affect the copyright holder. |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
> |
| 93 |
> To me it seems like it is not hard to bypass, but it would be *atleast* |
| 94 |
> indecent. |
| 95 |
> |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
There is nothing indecent about bypassing the efforts of somebody who |
| 98 |
wants to regulate the end-use of software. |
| 99 |
|
| 100 |
-- |
| 101 |
Rich |
Archives