Java problem

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> I'm not the one who reversed the meaning of free to mean restricted. And 
>> the GPL is simply restrictions.
> 
> Restrictions to stop abuse, removal of rights by third parties and
> to produce greater freedom.

They reduce both innovation and freedom.  If the original TCP/IP 
implementation had been encumbered with GPL restrictions, we probably 
would not be able to have this conversation today.

> You could say the same of the US consitution.
> After all why should the president not be able to cancel elections, they
> interfere with his freedom to innovate foreign policy.

Be careful what you suggest...  The constitution hasn't stopped the 
administration from creating a special class of people who are permitted 
to invade privacy with no balancing oversight.  I'd expect them to be 
using any information they collect to suit their own agenda.

>> of works - or keeping themselves from being improved in other ways.  The 
>> FSF even claims that it is illegal to distribute components separately 
>> that may be combined with GPL'd parts unless you apply the same 
>> restrictions.  That's like saying I can't give someone a cover for their 
>> copyrighted book or a frame for their painting.
> 
> You should also perhaps have asked for a beginners book on copyright law
> from Santa. Your analogies are totally broken. A frame is not a
> derivative work, nor is a cover (usually). The GPL likewise does not
> cover non-derivative works.

I'm not aware of any books that would show a court's decision on a case 
like the FSF's claim in the RIPEM situation (a claim that code 
containing no covered code was derivative).

> If you take from another work whether you make a cover by printing out a
> photo from inside a book and colouring it in, or by using GPL code in
> your code you end up with a derived work and the original author has
> rights not too.

It is clearly not legal to include a copy of covered works (although I 
contend that it harms all concerned when the same user is allowed to 
have a copy of the separate individual work anyway). However, I haven't 
seen anything except the FSF claim that when a user obtains his own copy 
of a covered work that its copyright can cover some other work written 
by someone else and distributed separately.  Has there ever been a court 
decision showing something not containing any covered material to be a 
derived work?

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesesll at gmail.com