Strelka and source code experts

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Hi Tord,

you have some good point Thanks.

But i believe the problem is following one:
You're starting with a GPL program. You're taking all files and code.
Now you're starting to modify the source and finaly, and thats importent, you're rewrite 100%. At the moment where you're modify functions the new code will be automaticly GPL because, lets for example, its still to 95% a copy (you're at the beginning). Your new code is changed to GPL. You're again starting by 100%. THen you do the next modification, copy dropped to 95%, but your new code is again GPL, back to 100% GPL.
And so on. This is a endless cyle up to the point everything is rewritten. But now new rewritten code is 100% GPL...

Thats what i think will happend. But maybe i'm wrong....

I am also not sure. It depends on whether the copyright laws only consider how the final product looks, or also how it was developed. To me it seems unlikely that the laws consider how the product was made, because it would make it almost impossible to prove anything.

I could be wrong, though: Of course I am not a lawyer. But my point remains: The question is not what the GPL says, but what the copyright laws say.

Tord

Hi Tord !

Ok, you mean you're changing so much in the code that you can claim you're the new copyright holder, right ?

In this case the GPL would be lost her state of license about this code. hmmmm, interesting view. Let me think about it while i'm drinking a cup of coffee

Best,
Daniel

[Michael Sherwin]

No, once it is GPL, it will be always GPL. You can change 100% of the code, its still GPL.

This is total nonsense. GPL is a copyright condition. The law specifies what is considered a copy, and what not. Nowhere in the world would something that is 100% different be considered a copy. So it is irrelevant what GPL claims about this case.

Even a 1% identity would be not enough to have the law recognize something as a copy. The fact that Joker contains the line

int main(int argc, char **argv)

which is an exact match with the vast majority of GPLd programs, does not make it an infringement on any copyright.

Hi HG,

I am sorry, that I must disagree with you, but Daniel is more correct. GPL is more than a copyright condition. The GPL basically is an agreement between the creator of the software and the people he allows to use it. It is free, but, you must agree to the license or you are not allowed to distribute any work derived from it. This is not copyright law. It is contract law. It also contains copyright conditions, but, that is not the main focus of it.

If Vasik used the GPL program Fruit as the guide to create Rybka, then he benifited from the work of Fabien and under the GPL agreement he must release the source code. He may not have to release all of it though. Those parts of Rybka that are completely new and seperate from Fruit he may not have to release. I am not sure on this last point though.

Mike

[Andrej Sidorov]

The GPL basically is an agreement between the creator of the software and the people he allows to use it. It is free, but, you must agree to the license or you are not allowed to distribute any work derived from it. This is not copyright law. It is contract law.
Mike

So Rybka must be GPLed since Rajlich has admitted thad he 'went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things'?

[Michael Sherwin]

The GPL basically is an agreement between the creator of the software and the people he allows to use it. It is free, but, you must agree to the license or you are not allowed to distribute any work derived from it. This is not copyright law. It is contract law.
Mike

So Rybka must be GPLed since Rajlich has admitted thad he 'went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things'?

Looks that way!

[hgm]

I don't think contract law can be invoked here, as the user doesn't sign anything. Nor does he pay anything that can be taken as evidence that there is an agreement here.

Why do you think that all commercial software comes with an install that first make you tick a box that you agreed with the licence conditions? Just because they like to include useless features in their software, and make install more tedious for the user??? It is a strict legal obligation!

I am not a lawyer either, but I don't think that copyright law allows you to attach conditions depending on how a product was made. Only the final result (as made public) has any legal status, the rest is private. Any conditions on what happens in privacy would be unenforcible, so making laws for it would make a joke of the law. And lawmakers don't generally like to be taken for idiots....

The GPL seems to acknowledge this:

To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

The phrase highlighted (by me) makes it clear they realize that there are fashions of modifying or verbatim copying that do not require copyright permission. And if no permission is needed, they cannot impose conditions for giving this permission. Hence the GPL does not apply to work modified/copied in this fashion. And hence that work can be further modified until it is a new work, still without falling under the GPL. And once you have a new work, it no longer is a modified version of the original for which the GPL applied. It is a modified version of some private intermediate versions to which the GPL did not apply. So there exists no GPLd work which it is a (partial) copy of, and the maker is free to distribute it under whatever license he likes.

[Andrej Sidorov]

The GPL basically is an agreement between the creator of the software and the people he allows to use it. It is free, but, you must agree to the license or you are not allowed to distribute any work derived from it. This is not copyright law. It is contract law.
Mike

So Rybka must be GPLed since Rajlich has admitted thad he 'went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things'?

Looks that way!

I hope someone will inform FSF immediately!

[Michael Sherwin]

I don't think contract law can be invoked here, as the user doesn't sign anything. Nor does he pay anything that can be taken as evidence that there is an agreement here.

Why do you think that all commercial software comes with an install that first make you tick a box that you agreed with the licence conditions? Just because they like to include useless features in their software, and make install more tedious for the user??? It is a strict legal obligation!

I am not a lawyer either, but I don't think that copyright law allows you to attach conditions depending on how a product was made. Only the final result (as made public) has any legal status, the rest is private. Any conditions on what happens in privacy would be unenforcible, so making laws for it would make a joke of the law. And lawmakers don't generally like to be taken for idiots....

The GPL seems to acknowledge this:

To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

The phrase highlighted (by me) makes it clear they realize that there are fashions of modifying or verbatim copying that do not require copyright permission. And if no permission is needed, they cannot impose conditions for giving this permission. Hence the GPL does not apply to work modified/copied in this fashion. And hence that work can be further modified until it is a new work, still without falling under the GPL. And once you have a new work, it no longer is a modified version of the original for which the GPL applied. It is a modified version of some private intermediate versions to which the GPL did not apply. So there exists no GPLd work which it is a (partial) copy of, and the maker is free to distribute it under whatever license he likes.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

[hgm]

But, as explained above, "modifying" here means "adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission".

So this clause does not forbid you to make changes in the software in a fashion that requires no copyright permission. (It would be powerless to do so.) And most countries exempt copies for private use from copyright restrictions.

[Michael Sherwin]

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

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.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

[Michael Sherwin]

But, as explained above, "modifying" here means "adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission".

So this clause does not forbid you to make changes in the software in a fashion that requires no copyright permission. (It would be powerless to do so.) And most countries exempt copies for private use from copyright restrictions.

But they also indicate any derrivitive work that does not fall under copyright.

Look at b) above that is in bold.

Just because in one place they are talking about material that does fall under copyright law does not mean that there is also not contract law. Hence number 5. in bold in the message your reply was to.