Text 2651, 94 rader
Skriven 2011-04-11 02:34:32 av A.D. Fundum
Ärende: Re: Is JFS really open source?
======================================
comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:2135
From: "A.D. Fundum" <what.ever@neverm.ind>

 > The code is covered by copyright.

Maybe. But there was a remark about something being GPL'ed. GPL is 
bogus, (c) isn't.

 > The GPL creates a right to make copies that otherwise
 > would be prohibtted.

No, it doesn't.

Of course you already understand the GPL doesn't create a right if the
GPL isn't valid, and something that isn't valid (or doesn't exist, as 
such) also cannot change a prohibbitation (sp?) status. What you're 
saying is essentially that all distributed software, based on another 
version that's "just" (c), is illegal. Because that makes no sense at 
all, for one, the GPL is bogus.

BTW, a clear situation is like a newsgroup article with a free 
LESSONS.ZIP, containing 2 text files:

1: /* RexxLesson1.CMD */;SAY "(c) Johann 2011"

2: Thise gelicenzierte software creatore avec NOTEPAD.EXE obligaat 
additium cette file

I think the first file includes a near-perfect (c) claim, not to be 
missed. File #2 appears not te be required, I don't understand it, I 
may (remove and) ignore it. What's left is just the first file. 
There's nothing allowed nor denied by the second file. As if it never 
existed, isn't it? Of course file #1 still is (c), an unchanged 
condition. You can do whatever you want with it, as long as it's 
compliant with the (c)-related laws and rules. I hope everybody 
noticed the lack of file #2 didn't change that at all. And it wouldn't
help if file #2 stated that it has to be mentioned casu quo has to 
occur in file #1

 > If the GPL is invalid in specific countries then there
 > is no right in those countries to make copies other
 > than those covered by fair use.

Wrong. First of all we'ld create a shorter list by mentioning 
countries where the GPL is valid. I.e. where English is an (official) 
language. Next, "fair use" is unclear to me, because it appereantly 
isn't the same as "legal use". The GPL doesn't add anything, it's 
irrelevant. And if it was relevant, there are (thank goodness) no 
country checks required, and so on. So the only remaining thing indeed
is the (c) you mentioned too. Write a smart IFS (i.e. embedding some 
level of your intellectual property), which clearly is free, claim its
(c), and publish its source too. Then you've "donated it to the public
domain", and about the only thing required for using (parts of) its 
unique source is to mention your original (c).

But this was about something being GPL'ed, which is 100.0% bogus. 
Let's assume you think the GPL applies to you. You download Johann's 
free (c) IFS.ZIP, including a GPL-related  file called LICENSE. Then 
you'ld have to respect the GPL, because you think the GPL  applies to 
you. It'll probably tell you that you always must include this file 
LICENCE, and so on. If this GPL doesn't apply to me, which obviously 
is the case, I can download the same  package, _remove_ the unneeded 
file LICENSE, and re-distribute the whole package without GPL. As long
as this GPL isn't clearly "(c) Johann", and required by his IFS 
product. It isn't. The limit isn't determined by what is fair, the 
limit is determined by the (c). The GPL doesn't add anything to that. 
I fear you'ld be living is a rather strange country if the use of my 
re-distributed package is restricted because some third-party file 
called LICENSE is missing. Is there e.g. a law or rule stating that 
you, as a private person, are required to look for such a file? And if
it's missing you should investigate where it is? And during this 
investigation, the use of the package in queston is assumed to be 
illegal until there's evidence it's legal?

There are also reversed laws, but that's as irrelevant as a GPL. E.g. 
being allowed to upload payware to Hobbes, but bot being allowed to 
download payware from Hobbes. As opposed to not being allowed to 
upload payware to Hobbes, but being allowed to download payware from 
Hobbes. Just a possible way to avoid licenses (assuming certain 
conditions), if those weren't bogus. 

I don't understand your last remark, perhaps confirming the fact that 
English isn't an official language for me... ;-)

As I stated earlier, this third-party GPL is as relevant as an 
impressive pile of Bills. I have nothing to do with some abroad 
foundation, speaking to me in some foreign language. Nevertheless one 
_may_ respect it. Unlike (c), one _must_ respect it.


--

--- Internet Rex 2.31
 * Origin: News-Service.com (1:261/20.999)