🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38954051.92D4CB93@quiotix.com>,
	"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> writes:
> Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> > If transfer of ownership is required for GPL, then GPL is dead.
And if no transfer of ownership is required, the vision of
people customizing GPL'ed software to adapt it to their
situation becomes impossible. To me, this has always been
one of the major attractions of the GPL --use a common base,
adapt it to your needs, contribute what's generally useful
back to the community, but keep to yourself what you want
to keep to yourself. The latter actually doesn't happen that
often, it's mostly a case of the maintainer not wanting to
integrate stuff that's too specific, and a user being reticent
to disclose the specific stuff for fear it might give 
competitors an unfair advantage. I've added some very
customer-specific stuff to GPL'ed programs, and because
it's so specific, there's no use contibuting it back. 
This customer insists on contibuting the generic stuff back
to the maintainers because it ensures that he'll be able
to use the new versions with a minimum of patching.

This subtle blending of one's own advantage with the 
common good makes the GPL such a crafty document. I'd
hate to have it reduced to plain propaganda.


>> The GPL doesn't use mealy-mouthed language trying to circumvent "fair
>> use". There is no problem with this.
> 
> You miss the point.  If GPL only applies given a transfer of ownership, then
> modified software doesn't need to be distributed under GPL at all, because it
> can be distributed *under a different license* without transfer of ownership. 
> If you think right-to-use shrink-wrap licenses are an invalid attempt to
> circumvent fair use, fine.  Just assume that the right-to-use license is a
> written, signed (or digitally executed) license, not a shrink-wrap.  I don't
> think anyone would argue that real written right-to-use licenses are invalid. 
> They're no different from an agreement giving you the right-to-use a car.

I suppose one could rent a machine with pre-installed GPL'ed
software without the lessor needing to provide the source
code. 

In any case, when one releases the source code there's always
a risk that it gets used illegally (that is, pasted into someones
binary-only product). The GPL is, like all legal documents, 
targetted towards law-abiding people, who want to respect the
letter and the spirit of agreements they enter into.

Would the use of GPL'ed software as described above be a
violation of the letter or the spirit of the GPL?

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
        The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.