Possible GPL violation in Avantis Content Cache servers

[Malcolm Bain]

Hi Harald, Tony and all,

Harald Welte wrote:
>> That's one possible interpretation, certainly, although I understood
>> that the GPL only required linked software to be released under the GPL.
>>  (Although I also understand that this is also an area of much debate
>> wrt the GPL.)
>>     
>
> Well, those questions are really hard, and at this time not really the
> important part.  
Sure - I was just pointing out that there _may_ be a bigger issue that 
the whole program may fall under the GPL - regardless of whether 
component GPL parts are correctly distributed or not (which they are 
obviously not, as you say later)

[snip]
>>> -- It is not a question of whether wget or setacl work as independent
>>> programs from ContentCache - it is the other way round: if ContentCache
>>> doesn't work without these two programs (or other GPL software), there
>>> would be strong arguments to say that they are not independent and
>>> therefore should all fall under the GPL...
>>>       
>
> I don't believe in such an argument.  Copyright doesn't extend to
> independent, separate works - no matter what you try to read into the
> GPL.  If one is not derived from the other, you will have a hard time
> arguing that the 'other' part (contantcache) has to be GPL.
>   
That, as Tony said, is part of the never ending GPL "copyleft reach" 
argument. I personally agree with what you say, though I think the GPL 
has contractual reach as well as copyright reach (despite what FSF and 
the GPL say about "GPL not being a contract"). I was voicing one side of 
the argument and just pointing out that depending on how the 
Contentcache product is designed, it might be considered a derivative 
work of wget. If it is written to use only wget, and they are 
distributed together as a whole, then I understand that the GPL says the 
whole thing goes under the GPL (though I agree this is more likely to be 
seen as a "contract" provision, and not a pure "copyright" license 
condition). And, the separate works section of the GPL only applies when 
the components are distributed separately.

Quote: GPL2 section 2
/But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a 
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the 
terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to 
the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who 
wrote it./

(this issue does not detract from your suggested direct action against 
incorrectly distributing SetACL, wget, etc.), which is first line of  
action.

It depends what your purpose is: do you just want those components to be 
properly distributed (of course, yes), and/or do you want the whole 
thing to be freed so you can modify, improve, redistribute it? :)
>   
>> I have legal access to the software as the systems were distributed by
>> the LEA (Local Education Authority) to schools. As explained in the
>> page, the User Agent string put me onto the problem, the rest was done
>> by booting from a Knoppix CD and investigating the contents of the hard
>> disk.
>>     
>
> If The software vendor doesn't respond appropriateyl, it might also be
> worthwhile informing the LEA about the copyright infringements in that
> piece of software that they distribute.  I'm not familiar with UK law,
> but in Germany they would knowingly infringe the license if they
> continue distributing the proxy product after having received such
> notification.
>   
More on that later!

> Cheers,
>
> p.s.: I'' be on holidays from Feb-27 to Mar 21, so don't expect any
> further replies in that time.
>   
Have a nice time.
Malcolm

-- 
mbain at legistics.net
610256539


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gnumonks.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060222/1bb8942a/attachment.html