Say "Bye-Bye SCO!"

[leenix]

Hello All:

I am totally new to this group, so forgive me if I overstep. I am also
not an expert on ANY version of the GPL. But I am reading your posts and
am actually learning a bit about them. For that, I thank you.

If I am right, I believe what Joe is talking about is not necessarily
the law, but how people might distort the law for their own ends. All
mothers have baby pictures of their kids naked. (or maybe they don't and
I need some therapy :0)) Does this mean they're guilty of child
pornography? Practically, no. Technically, yes. 

Again, I am just a lowly programmer and know very little about the
technicalities of the GPL, so forgive me if I sound stupid or am talking
out of my hind parts.

I am also very interested in what the MAIN differences are between GPL
V1, 2 and 3. Is there somewhere to get a simple explanation of these
from someone who has no stake? You can read some things about them on
blogs, but they are always bashing v3  or loving it. I haven't found a
place with someone just explaining the licenses.

Thanks again,
Lee


On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:11 -0500, Joe Fish wrote:
> >>But the gift certificates aren't food.  And a Novell support voucher
> isn't GPLed software.  The argument that MS giving such a voucher is
> >>'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that
> otherwise reasonable people are pushing it. 
> 
> Hey, its not ME that started the food analolgy.  As I said, the terms
> of GPLv3 have changed -- it is no longer based on "distribution", it
> is based on "conveyance".  And, without GPLv3 enabling MS to "assist
> in the conveyance of" GPLv3 software, they have NO RIGHTS regarding
> that software at all, under US copyright laws, anyway. 
> 
> Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing
> certificates by copyright law?  Not to me, but, again, its not ME you
> have to convince.  From my OP:
> 
> " ... law does not specialize in logic." 
> 
> It doesn't seem plausible to me that I could be arrested on criminal
> charges and have my life savings taken away and spend most of the rest
> of my life in jail for humming a few songs I heard on the radio out in
> public, but that definitely IS plausible under current "IP" laws
> (though those provisions are obviously not enforced). 
> 
> The fact is, if MS sells / distributes a voucher that results in
> software copyrighted by FSF and licensed under GPLv3 being "conveyed"
> to a user, its unclear what the law is regarding MS' responsibilities
> under the GPLv3.  And those responsibilities are determined as much by
> the judge / jury's mood and whether they may've gotten a bad breakfast
> at Denny's as much as they are by what you or I think is logical. 
> 
> A court could rule that no one "forced" MS to sign the Novell
> agreement, and there's nothing saying that they can't choose to
> dishonor that agreement, rather than dishonoring the terms of GPLv3 if
> they don't like them. 
> 
> The fact that this is even a discussion is a sign of the larger
> problem to me: that "IP" laws in this country are expanding in
> strength and scope exponentially, to the detriment of the public.  
> 
> Is the idea that MS could be held to the terms of software they are
> "assisting in the conveyance of" any more ridiculous than something
> like the story at the following link, or with Boy Scouts being sued
> for singing songs around the campfire? 
> 
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JOE
> 
> 
> On 9/24/07, Monty J. Harder <mjharder at gmail.com> wrote:
>         On 9/23/07, Joe Fish <reverend.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>                          distributes GPL software (because I don't buy
>                         the idea that selling coupons redeemable at
>                         Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more
>                         than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my
>                         daughter would make me a restaurant). 
>                 
>                 It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant".  Does it,
>                 OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in
>                 conveying McDonald's gift certificates"?
>         
>         But the gift certificates aren't food.  And a Novell support
>         voucher isn't GPLed software.  The argument that MS giving
>         such a voucher is 'distributing software' is just ridiculous,
>         and I can't believe that otherwise reasonable people are
>         pushing it. 
>         
>         
>                 GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY
>                 to try to make it so what MS is doing IS considered
>                 "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore
>                 covered by the license.
>         
>         I don't see how it's possible.  Furthermore, I think that the
>         FSF might have gotten hustled.  This only plays into the "GPL
>         is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!!
>         11111" FUD.  Only it isn't entirely FUD anymore with the FSF
>         making such claims. 
>         
>         
>         
>         
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug