Re: License wars

["Alexander Terekhov" <TEREKHOV@de.ibm.com>]

Hugues Talbot wrote:
[...]
> The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is.

Because that's defined in the copyright statute and, to some 
extent, in the case law.

> Is it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer 
> to have some opinion on this?

It surely won't hurt. ;-)

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL18.pdf

> You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative 
> work but at least it's there.

Really?

<quote source=http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt>

A "work based on the Library" means either the Library or any 
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work 
containing the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or 
with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into 
another language.

</quote>

Translation: "we're going to impose restrictions on BOTH 
derivative AND COLLECTIVE works (if you distribute them) and 
now see the copyright statute and check also the case law if 
you don't understand the legal meaning of 'derivative works' 
and 'collective works' in software".

What do you NOT understand here? My problem is NOT related
to the "share-alike" provisions for derivative works. The
CPL does have it too. My problem with [L]GPL is that [L]GPL 
imposes restrictions on the "entire" COLLECTIVE works... 
including non-derivative "constituents". Do you get it now?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. I'm NOT speaking for IBM here. "My own opinions; and in 
no way reflect official opinion or policy of IBM Corp". Okay?


Sent by:        pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com
To:     pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
cc:      
Subject:        License wars



Dear Alexander,

The LGPL's intention is to let people use Free software into
proprietary code as long as they go through some slightly annoying
hoops, while ensuring that the Free software itself remains Free. I
think this is what we want (in broad terms).

Now I've scanned through the CPL and it does not seem to protect the
Free software in any way that is clearly spelled.  The LGPL says that
if you modify the original Free software then your modification must
also be Free. The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is. Is 
it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer to have some
opinion on this?

You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative work but at
least it's there.

I don't want to go into any kind of religious war on licenses, but the
(L)GPL has been enforced several times by the FSF, so far no one has
dared or found it worthwhile to go to court, maybe it is `idiotic' in
your own words but it seems to be somewhat effective.

The FSF has stated several times that they would help anyone wishing
to enforce the (L)GPL on their own software. Can we expect the same
service from IBM, should someone infringe on the CPL?

The point of a Free Software license is to grand some rights and have
some protection. The CPL does the first part all right, I'm not
sure about the second, sorry.


--------
Hugues Talbot, CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences
Locked Bag 17, Building E6B, Macquarie University  North Ryde 
NSW  2113  Australia           Ph: 61 2 9325 3208 Fax: 61 2 9325 3200

Verbing weirds language -- Calvin