On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
Feist v Rural; header files are *factual data*; no
creativity there.
I disagree that there is no creativity in a header file. It's
certainly not an open and shut case.
None of our opinions matter until there's caselaw,
of course, and there
isn't.
Right. That's the main point I was making. The safer option would be
to convert the library into a standalone app (which in this case makes
a lot of a sense anyway), and then just pipe data to/from it (or use
files, or whatever). Wikitext in, html out. This would be *much*
simpler than converting Mediawiki in its entirety into a standalone
parser which you could pipe to. At least, it was last time I tried to
do it, which admittedly was several years ago. And I really don't see
how you could argue that this creates a derivative work. It's no
different than piping to/from gzip, and I don't think anyone argues
that *that* creates a derivative work.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
From:
"Anthony" <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Aryeh Gregor
You can always *use* GPLd code however you like.
Does "use" include "prepare a derivative work"?
As long as you don't distribute it, sure. The GPL was, is, and will
always be *a license to distribute*. GPL doesn't even forbid you to
modify and make available as a web app; you need to release under AGPL
if you want to restrict that.
It doesn't need to forbid it. It only needs to fail to permit it.
"You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License." "or modify".
So where does the GPL expressly provide for modifying the program
without licensing the derivative under the GPL?
Yes, there's nothing in the GPL which requires you to release that GPL
derivative to the public. That's what the AGPL does. But if one of
your employees or volunteers gets a hold of it and puts it up on a P2P
hosting site, then it's out there, and you're going to have a hell of
a time suing people for copyright infringement for copying your work
which is a derivative of a GPL work and not getting sued yourself for
violating the GPL.
If you want to *distribute* proprietary
(or otherwise GPL-incompatible) code that depends on my volunteer
contributions, I'm happy to tell you to go jump off a bridge.
Copyright law gives the author an exclusive right to *prepare*
derivative works, not just to *distribute* derivative works. What in
the GPL gives you permission to prepare a proprietary derivative work
which you do not distribute?
Citation? Note that such a citation must take into account whether
there's any *use* in so doing in a non-computer-code environment.
A citation for what? The fact that copyright law recognizes an
exclusive right of an author to *prepare* derivative works? Title 17,
Section 106(2) of the US Code
(
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-…).
The other half of my statement was a question.