Patrik Stridvall ps@leissner.se writes:
But why should I do that? I can for example write a script that download Wine for the
end user user
and apply the patch automatically.
The patch would be considered a derivative work, so distributing it would also violate the LGPL.
That again is dependent of the doctrine of derived work have any meaning since the patch is written by me and only contains my work.
Just because you build upon somebody else work doesn't mean it is a derivation.
Anyway since it denies my right to speech it must be constitional within the context of the first amendment which is IMHO very unlikely that a strong doctrine of derived work is. The copyright clause exception only reserves only gives congress the right to give exclusive rights to _their_ work not to the work of others (read: me).
Note by patch I do not nessarily mean a patch like (diff -u) that contains the (LGPL:ed) context of the patch. An "ed-script" or whatever similar will do.
Anyway the LGPL:ed context of a (diff -u) patch might very well be consider fair use so that might not be relevant.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Patrik Stridvall ps@leissner.se writes:
But why should I do that? I can for example write a script that download Wine for the
end user user
and apply the patch automatically.
The patch would be considered a derivative work, so distributing it would also violate the LGPL.
That again is dependent of the doctrine of derived work have any meaning since the patch is written by me and only contains my work.
[... irrelevant first amendment stufff...]
Note by patch I do not nessarily mean a patch like (diff -u) that contains the (LGPL:ed) context of the patch. An "ed-script" or whatever similar will do.
I see exactly what you mean. You mean a binary patch that says things like: * delete bytes 2294 to 2297 * replace bytes 38455 to 39345 with "...." * insert "...." at offset 41753
Such a patch is very specific to a given source version but does not include any of the original source.
Well, if you can legally use such a patch to work-around the LGPL license, then you can use it to get past *any* license: GPL, AFPL, MS shared-source, .... whatever. And this is not only true of source files, this is also true of binary files: you can apply such a patch to executables, libraries, mp3s, mpegs, ...
This has already been done and the author very quickly got into hot water. IIRC it was less that two years ago, about a GPL game and an individual who published a mod as a patch to the game binaries but refused to publish his source. I'm not sure how it ended. You can probably research it in your copious amounts of spare time, I think there was an article on it on Slashdot at the time. But I can assure you that no company in a 'developped' country would try such a thing. If such a stunt were recognized as legal then it would spell the end of copyright of all electronic forms of songs, movies, books, ... You can be sure that the RIAA, MPAA and all the other entertainment companies in the world out would never allow such a thing... and for once I say that they would be right.
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
Francois Gouget wrote:
I see exactly what you mean. You mean a binary patch that says things like:
delete bytes 2294 to 2297
replace bytes 38455 to 39345 with "...."
insert "...." at offset 41753
Such a patch is very specific to a given source version but does not
include any of the original source.
Well, if you can legally use such a patch to work-around the LGPL license, then you can use it to get past *any* license: GPL, AFPL, MS shared-source, .... whatever. And this is not only true of source files, this is also true of binary files: you can apply such a patch to executables, libraries, mp3s, mpegs, ...
At Corel, we investigated this issue with respect to redistributing a patch to MFC to get it building under Wine (at the time it didn't). The MFC license did not allow redistribution of MFC source code.
The lawyer's opinion was that a patch of this sort was perfectly legitimate.
-Gav
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Gavriels State wrote:
Francois Gouget wrote:
I see exactly what you mean. You mean a binary patch that says things like:
delete bytes 2294 to 2297
replace bytes 38455 to 39345 with "...."
insert "...." at offset 41753
Such a patch is very specific to a given source version but does not
include any of the original source.
Well, if you can legally use such a patch to work-around the LGPL license, then you can use it to get past *any* license: GPL, AFPL, MS shared-source, .... whatever. And this is not only true of source files, this is also true of binary files: you can apply such a patch to executables, libraries, mp3s, mpegs, ...
At Corel, we investigated this issue with respect to redistributing a patch to MFC to get it building under Wine (at the time it didn't). The MFC license did not allow redistribution of MFC source code.
Yes, MFC is very annoying as it does not compile as is.
The lawyer's opinion was that a patch of this sort was perfectly legitimate.
Interesting. Do you know if the 'intent' of the patch entered into consideration in the opinion of the lawyer? I.e. I believe that sometimes the law gives you greater latitude if your purpose is to ensure 'interoperability' or 'compatibility'. Still, I think I am not going to publish such a patch until I can get some lawyer advice of my own :-)
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable from Linux
Ah yes, Mister Slade from the 'QuakeLives' project... Oddly enough, none of us have heard a thing from him since.
Basically he was in very hot water for not releasing the source - and his attempts to circumvent the GPL by pretending the patches he was distributing were closed-source failed... after all, the bytes he was replacing with were still derived from compiling the original source code and simply binary diffing the changes.
I happened to be stuck in the middle of this particular incident, and some of Slades arguments were quite amusing. In one case, he attempted to put up a pre-download EULA, stating that "You may not download these binaries if you intend to request the source-code". Very laughable... John Carmack even was prepared to pay a lawyer on this one (http://finger.planetquake.com/plan.asp?userid=johnc&id=13992).
For anyone intrested (its a good laugh) here's a collection of e-mails, irc logs, etc related to someone trying to ignore the GPL - badly. (Warning, some zealots contained within).
http://www.kev.pulo.com.au/quake/qlfiles/
This has already been done and the author very quickly got into hot water. IIRC it was less that two years ago, about a GPL game and an individual who published a mod as a patch to the game binaries but refused to publish his source. I'm not sure how it ended. You can probably research it in your copious amounts of spare time, I think there was an article on it on Slashdot at the time.
-
Francois Gouget -
Gavriels State -
J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) -
Patrik Stridvall