Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jun 2010 22:36 UTC
Google When Google first unveiled its WebM project, there were quite some concerns over its license. This license was incompatible with version 2 and 3 of the GPL, and was effectively a new license, causing unnecessary confusion. Google has now cleared everything up by switching to a regular BSD license.
Thread beginning with comment 428511
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: GPL
by dbolgheroni on Mon 7th Jun 2010 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: GPL"
dbolgheroni
Member since:
2007-01-18

They agree that the original work must constitue a significant part of the new derived work. If the original work doesn't constitue a significant part of the new work, then the new work is not "based on" the original at all, and is therefore not a derivative work.


I don't care what the definition says. But I suggest you, a GPL specialist, to send an e-mail to Richard Stallman. He probably doesn't know this.

This is basic copyright law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what someone like Stallman may or may not think.


We were talking about GPL, and GPL works this way. Period. Get yourself informed.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[12]: GPL
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Jun 2010 03:49 in reply to "RE[11]: GPL"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"They agree that the original work must constitue a significant part of the new derived work. If the original work doesn't constitue a significant part of the new work, then the new work is not "based on" the original at all, and is therefore not a derivative work.
I don't care what the definition says. But I suggest you, a GPL specialist, to send an e-mail to Richard Stallman. He probably doesn't know this.
This is basic copyright law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what someone like Stallman may or may not think.
We were talking about GPL, and GPL works this way. Period. Get yourself informed.
"

Pfft. Utter rubbish.

Here is the way it "works". This was the outcome of the first actual case in the US involving the GPL.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html
The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license.


It is all about a company making a slightly modified version of an entire open source program (in this case, BusyBox) and releasing that as closed source within its own product. That is a real-life, honest-to-goodness, actual-court-case GPL violation.

Copying just one line of GPL code into a million lines of your own code just isn't. The law doesn't say that at all (I even quoted the actual text of the law to you). If you tried to take such a case to court as an alleged violation of the GPL license, the court would simply say to you "go away you silly little boy".

Perhaps just that is what I too should say to you.

Edited 2010-06-07 03:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[13]: GPL
by dbolgheroni on Mon 7th Jun 2010 03:57 in reply to "RE[12]: GPL"
dbolgheroni Member since:
2007-01-18

Here is the way it "works". This was the outcome of the first actual case in the US involving the GPL.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html

The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license.


Thank you. Just proves what I already said.

Reply Parent Score: 1