Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 01:49:00 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster Message-ID: <3F584DFC.DAE597D7@mindspring.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030904135920.03aab5e0@localhost> <20030905033417.GA1374@online.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > Brett Glass wrote: > > If you view GPLed code, and then write something similar, you are > > open to claims that your work is derivative of the GPLed code and > > therefore must likewise be GPLed. This is what I thought he was aiming at... > You are open to the same sort of claims if you view closed-source code > (under, say, an NDA, or in a book where the authors have not > relinquished copyright for the code). The answer to this is "don't look at code not under an acceptable commercial-use friendly public license". > However, with the GPL, the FSF or whoever owns the copyrights will be > satisfied if you remove the offending code fragments: in fact if they > are small innocuous-looking chunks nobody's likely to pursue you. So, for example, if SCO or IBM owned the copyright... you'd be safe, right? 8-) 8-). > That said, we live in a litigious world, and if some nasty person really > wants to sue you on flippant copyright or patent violation or other > grounds (like SCO), you must have deep pockets (like IBM). Of all > organisations in the world, be assured that the FSF is the least likely > to sue you for anything less than brazen cut-and-pasting of entire > programs, despite your personal vendetta against them. What about if the GPL'ed code came from SCO or IBM, granting that SCO is litigious, and IBM has deep pockets? -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F584DFC.DAE597D7>