Comments on: Why modifying the GPL is bad… http://rakaz.nl/2006/12/why-modifying-the-gpl-is-bad.html about standards, webdesign, usability and open source Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:52:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: rakaz http://rakaz.nl/2006/12/why-modifying-the-gpl-is-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-1120 rakaz Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:44:18 +0000 #comment-1120 Alexander, my point is that courts do not need the additional clarification. The term distribution is used 111 times in the US Copyright Act. Believe me, they already know what distribution means. The GPL is based on copyright law, so courts will use their pre-existing knowledge about copyright law – including the definition of distribution – to interpret the license. I am sure we can agree that the additional clarifications change the way some people and probably also the way the courts interpret the GPL. If there is no difference between the interpretation with or without the clarifications, then these clarifications would not be necessary. Interpretation is just as important as the clear text of the license. If you change the interpretation you are de facto changing the license without ever having to change a single letter in the text of the license. Any change that limits the rights of the licensee compared to the original GPL will make the modified license incompatible with the original GPL. Even if those changes are only in the interpretation. Alexander, my point is that courts do not need the additional clarification. The term distribution is used 111 times in the US Copyright Act. Believe me, they already know what distribution means. The GPL is based on copyright law, so courts will use their pre-existing knowledge about copyright law – including the definition of distribution – to interpret the license.

I am sure we can agree that the additional clarifications change the way some people and probably also the way the courts interpret the GPL. If there is no difference between the interpretation with or without the clarifications, then these clarifications would not be necessary. Interpretation is just as important as the clear text of the license. If you change the interpretation you are de facto changing the license without ever having to change a single letter in the text of the license.

Any change that limits the rights of the licensee compared to the original GPL will make the modified license incompatible with the original GPL. Even if those changes are only in the interpretation.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://rakaz.nl/2006/12/why-modifying-the-gpl-is-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-1119 Michael Bernstein Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:04:06 +0000 #comment-1119 Also, that is not what the FSF has said. Also, that is not what the FSF has said.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://rakaz.nl/2006/12/why-modifying-the-gpl-is-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-1118 Michael Bernstein Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:03:13 +0000 #comment-1118 Alexander, I suspect your lawyers are still leading you astray. The GPL is not a contract, it is a license, and therefore the copyright definition of 'distribution' holds sway, and it does not need to be defined. In fact, I'm not sure you *can* redefine it. That said, IANAL, and TINLA. Alexander, I suspect your lawyers are still leading you astray. The GPL is not a contract, it is a license, and therefore the copyright definition of ‘distribution’ holds sway, and it does not need to be defined. In fact, I’m not sure you *can* redefine it. That said, IANAL, and TINLA.

]]> By: Alexander Muse http://rakaz.nl/2006/12/why-modifying-the-gpl-is-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-1117 Alexander Muse Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:48:10 +0000 #comment-1117 Thanks for the note. The problem is that if you don't define terms in a contract the courts (or your opposition) will for you. The authors of the GPL explain the confusion in their FAQ ~ they simply suggest that they will clarify in version 3 of the release. We do not modify the terms or change a single sentence, instead we clarify our intent "that modifications to the source code be included if you distribute it, period." What is distribution? The GPL authors indicate that serving the code publicly on a server is distribution, but many people don't agree. Thanks for the note. The problem is that if you don’t define terms in a contract the courts (or your opposition) will for you. The authors of the GPL explain the confusion in their FAQ ~ they simply suggest that they will clarify in version 3 of the release. We do not modify the terms or change a single sentence, instead we clarify our intent “that modifications to the source code be included if you distribute it, period.” What is distribution? The GPL authors indicate that serving the code publicly on a server is distribution, but many people don’t agree.

]]> By: Roel http://rakaz.nl/2006/12/why-modifying-the-gpl-is-bad.html/comment-page-1#comment-1115 Roel Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:35:56 +0000 #comment-1115 If nothing else, you definitely taught me how I should interpret the "distribution" clause in the GPL. Thanks! If nothing else, you definitely taught me how I should interpret the “distribution” clause in the GPL.

Thanks!

]]>