Strelka and source code experts

[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.

I admit that I do not know how enforceable this license is. I am just saying what it says.

A derivitive work is not covered by copyright law. But, it is covered by this license. Is this license legal? I do not know, but, they had a group of lawyars create it!

If only copyright law is valid here then this license is totally worthless as copyright law is all that is needed.

[hgm]

Code: Select all

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. 

Well, I see no contradiction in this to my view.

The work you distribute cannot said to be a derivative of the original GPLd source, if it has 0% of the original code in it.

It can be said to be derived from one of the private, altered copies, as it had some code in common with those (namelty the code that you added/altered). But they did not fall under the GPL, as copyright law determines that private copies are free of copyright restrictions.

Like I said, copyright law most countries does not allow an author to put any conditions on private use of (copies of) legally obtained copyrightable material.

[Michael Sherwin]

Code: Select all

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. 

Well, I see no contradiction in this to my view.

The work you distribute cannot said to be a derivative of the original GPLd source, if it has 0% of the original code in it.

It can be said to be derived from one of the private, altered copies, as it had some code in common with those (namelty the code that you added/altered). But they did not fall under the GPL, as copyright law determines that private copies are free of copyright restrictions.

Like I said, copyright law most countries does not allow an author to put any conditions on private use of (copies of) legally obtained copyrightable material.

derrivitive does not mean copy. If Vasik used Fruit as a guide to create Rybka then Rybka is a derivitive of Fabiens work. Period.

[hgm]

Indeed. It does not mean copy. So copyright does not apply to derivatives that are not at the same time also (partial) copies.

It is thus not a violation of any law (in particular not of copyright law) to use them in any way you see fit.

If the original author of the work expressly forbids you to make derivatives, you treat him the same way as people that tell you they don't want you to put your car in your garage...

You obtained the material legally.
You exerted the right granted to you by law to make a private copy and modify it.
Distributing the derivative does not violate copyright law, as it is not a copy.
Period.

It all depends on if there is still recognizable identity between the original and the derivative, other than standard public-domain C idiom.

[Michael Sherwin]

Indeed. It does not mean copy. So copyright does not apply to derivatives that are not at the same time also (partial) copies.

It is thus not a violation of any law (in particular not of copyright law) to use them in any way you see fit.

If the original author of the work expressly forbids you to make derivatives, you treat him the same way as people that tell you they don't want you to put your car in your garage...

You obtained the material legally.
You exerted the right granted to you by law to make a private copy and modify it.
Distributing the derivative does not violate copyright law, as it is not a copy.
Period.

It all depends on if there is still recognizable identity between the original and the derivative, other than standard public-domain C idiom.

Here in the USA (the most free country on the face of the earth ) if you own a car that you do not drive, it also must have license plates, or you can be fined, even if you do keep the car out of sight in a garage. Then in some neighborhoods if the car is deemed unsightly you can by law be forced to keep it in a garage. People that refuse to comply with these laws can go to jail, but, most likely the police will just come with a tow truck and hall the car away.

The GPL may be more binding here in this country than in others. Fabien, the author of Fruit released his program under a license which is supossedly a legal document with something to it (or is it all bluff?), that expressly forbids someone to distribute any derived work whether it be in part or in full. So, once again I say that if Vasik (who also lives in the United States) used Fruit as a guide (as a template) to create a work alike to Fruit, but, faster and then merly added a few things then Rybka is a derived work and the GPL does only allow this, if the license is agreed to and followed. The only real question is whether it is binding under law or not. Period.

[smirobth]

Here in the USA (the most free country on the face of the earth ) if you own a car that you do not drive, it also must have license plates, or you can be fined, even if you do keep the car out of sight in a garage.

Are you sure? Automotive laws vary from state to state but I have never lived in a state where this is true.

[Michael Sherwin]

Here in the USA (the most free country on the face of the earth ) if you own a car that you do not drive, it also must have license plates, or you can be fined, even if you do keep the car out of sight in a garage.

Are you sure? Automotive laws vary from state to state but I have never lived in a state where this is true.

Where I live, this is true, I am sure!

[hristo]

The GPL may be more binding here in this country than in others. Fabien, the author of Fruit released his program under a license which is supossedly a legal document with something to it (or is it all bluff?), that expressly forbids someone to distribute any derived work whether it be in part or in full. So, once again I say that if Vasik (who also lives in the United States) used Fruit as a guide (as a template) to create a work alike to Fruit, but, faster and then merly added a few things then Rybka is a derived work and the GPL does only allow this, if the license is agreed to and followed. The only real question is whether it is binding under law or not. Period.

I believe the binding exists, however I don't know if this GPL license has been fully tested in the court of law. Most people prefer to settle without going through the entire process.

As far as derivative works are concerned then the copyright license applies only to the pieces of code that were under that license and that constitute a licensable item. For example, a complete implementation of an algorithm is subject to the license, where 'for(int i=0; i<10; ++i) cout << i;' is not. Furthermore, what doesn't get covered by the GPL is the algorithms and ideas (etc.) and in this sense if a programmer implemented the GPLd algorithms on his own then his work is not a subject to the GPL.

Some aspects of programming are not copyrightable (such as 'ideas', etc.) and to those the GPL doesn't apply.

Consider this (while keeping in mind that all those examples are often insufficient) -- you can copyright "Romeo and Juliet" but you cannot copyright the story (idea) behind it.

In case of Rybka it is immaterial how he got to the final (released) version, since as a private user he can do anything he wants with the GPLd code, however the GPL comes into play when he released the software to others. If the version that was released to the public contained GPLd code in it (pieces of code that are copyrightable, not just 'ideas') then Rybka should have been GPLd. If however, there was nothing from the original GPLd code included in the released version then Rybka is not subject to the GPL.

What Vasik used as a template to get going is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what he actually released to the public. One can always request (if so inclined) the source code from Vasik for the original Rybka with compiler instructions such that after the source is compiled it produces the same exact binary that was distributed to the public and then analyze this code for similarity with the GPLd code. If there is no similarity then the code is not a subject to the GPL license.

The GPL is not a bluff, BTW. There are very few places where one (company) can rewrite the original code from scratch -- it is money/time inefficient and quite often the resulting product is not as good as the original and the future developments that continue to occur on the GPLd side are then lost (!) to those who have rewritten it all. The GPL is very real and very good license which in the long run makes more business sense than succumbing to proprietary 'hell'. But the GPL will become hell if it implied (or even contemplated) the restrictions that you are talking about.

Regards.

[hristo]

derrivitive does not mean copy. If Vasik used Fruit as a guide to create Rybka then Rybka is a derivitive of Fabiens work. Period.

This is incorrect.
If this were true then you must consider that Fruit was a derivative of something else and that was a derivative of something before it ... you go back ... until something was a derivative of product that wasn't under the GPL and hence you must conclude that all those GPLd versions are illegal and only the 'original' (very first) license is valid -- in essence you are going for the "all your code belongs to us" argument.
You cannot extend the term "derivative work" without bounds, for it becomes completely meaningless.

Regards.

[Michael Sherwin]

Then the license should not have used the word 'derived'. And clause 5) is invalid when it says that if you distribute a work that has been derived from a GPL source it must be under the GPL. If 'you agree to something' then you are bound by the agreement and not by copyright law. The GPL implies that it is a contract that a person agrees to if a derived work is distributed. If this is a binding contract then it covers more than copyright law. It is a contract as well.

The contract may not stand up in court though.