FoulDragon@aol.com wrote:
> What terrifies me about the GPL is that some segments seem to imply if
> read the right way (accoridng to the copy in my old Suse 6.4 manual):
>
> -Modified files must be identified as such and marked with date of
> modification-- it sounds like the spirit of this text is "You've gotta
> keep a change index file"
You are mistaken in the sense that it is the letter and not the spirit. : )
To me section 2 discusses what conditions you must meet in order to
DISTRIBUTE a MODIFIED copy of the software. Section A clearly states
that you must provide some form of notice of what you changed and the date.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
This is a good thing(tm) even though it may seem ornery. If you look at
the preamble you will understand why (your own protection (and mine) of
course):
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
Also very cleanly documented change files help IMMENSELY in defending
one's work. Think of the SCO bullcrap that happened recently as reason
why understanding who added what when and where is important for not
only those writing the code, but those using it.
> -If I distribute the binary commercially, I can't use the "I got the
> source from foo, and you can too" escape route. This means I'm sunk
> with storage requirements for a package that nobody may want if, for
> example, I'm just offering CDs with Windows gimp and openoffice, in
> case someone demands the source.
If it is something you are worried about you make the source and binary
a single download. This way you are ensured that every one that got the
binary got the source.
> I'd also prefer a stricter definition of what will invoke the need to
> GPL a resultant work, since "derivative work" is a very subject to
> interpretation. Just say "nine lines safe, ten lines not." It
> probably also differs by region; probably there are countries where
> some GPL-forced programme can be safely non-GPL.
I think this is picking nits. If you want a strict (and safe)
definition. One character of code results in a "derivative work". I
suspect if you hold to that you won't get your scrotum in too many vices.
> Of course, I think the only real answer is to completely wipe out
> copyright.
Sadly, I don't think this is the answer. It would be akin to saying the
solution to the poor behavior of most of our politicians is total
anarchy. I think reverting copyright back to it's original form or
close to it would be acceptable. Let a work be copyrighted for a
MAXIMUM of 15 years. Think about it.. Any movie, music, software or
book created before 1980 would be in the public domain. To me this is a
fair trade. Personally I would like to see it be closer to 7 years. As
most movies, music and software have their money drained out of them
within 3 years. How many movies do you see playing at the local
cineplex for example made before 1998? How many NEW cd's are being sold
that were made before 1998 etc etc etc.....
My two cents..
-Derek Neighbors
(text/plain)