Date: 24 Dec 2001 13:50:59 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: dwalton@acm.org Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does Linux violate the GPL? Message-ID: <6w666wthh8.66w@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011224032352.24d6cbff.dwalton@acm.org> References: <20011223153232.4b562a74.dwalton@acm.org> <15398.28461.605242.845831@guru.mired.org> <axitaxt6dg.tax@localhost.localdomain> <20011224032352.24d6cbff.dwalton@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Walton <dwalton@acm.org> writes: > On 23 Dec 2001 22:39:45 -0800, swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) wrote: [snip] > > > > I've seen people discuss "use" and "utilize" here before, but I've never > done a good job of grasping the distinction. The dictionary hasn't been > much help, either. I wasn't aware of any distinction until just now. My dictionary (AH) says "use", "employ", and "utilize" are synonyms, with "employ" especially appropriate in the context of hiring & jobs. It says: "Utilize" is especially appropriate in the narrower sense of making useful or productive what has been otherwise or of expanding productivity by finding new uses for the thing or person involved. All are equal in our context, it seems to me. The only problem is in not considering all possible uses when using the word: excuting, deriving from, publishing, etc. 17 USC doesn't help as it popularized the word in section 117 saying it's OK to make another copy of an owned copy if it "is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner" (and OK for archiving). But 17 USC specifies the "use" much more tightly than most people who use the word. > > Along the same lines, note that what the GPL seems to say is often > > significantly different from what GPL licensors say it says and often > > from what they insist upon (also often different things). > > That's because none of them have a clue what it says anyway. Not entirely. I particularly had in mind Stallman when I wrote that. Of course, it might be because we/I misunderstand the GPL, and in any case, one must be prepared to deal with how others understand it. > > (Note that the BSDL permits > > comingling of code without notice of the owner of specific code, which > > results in it being done to an extent that such designations of owners > > is not even possible. So even without the deception, the effect would > > be much the same, namely GPL infection. :-). > > Now there is a good question. Say a file contains the BSDL and some code, > and that file is included as part of a larger GPL work (ignore the > potential GPL conflict there). In the absence of any ownership > designation, wouldn't any changes made to that file have to be considered > a part of the BSDL work? I suppose that's a question only a court could > decide... Make it easier. Part is BSDL'd and part is X11L'd. Still messy. I'll try to remember to run this by a lawyer I see at LUG meetings sometimes. Maybe one would be able to consider the work a "joint work" (another 17 USC 101 term) which one uses under license from both owners. When they offer different licenses, one accepts both and lives within the (worst) conditions of both, and when publishing derivations, the will carry both licenses, plus maybe one's own. Note that the licenses would combine in a kind of "AND" rather than "OR", while their conditions combine in a kind of "OR" rather than "AND"; a condition by one licensor would apply to the whole joint work. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6w666wthh8.66w>