Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 12:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > distribution is allowed by section 6.
> >
> > Distribution is allowed by 17 USC 109. And [L]GPL is a joke.
> 
> Said allowed distribution is:
> 
> mv /a /b

Sorta true.

> 
> not
> 
> cp /a /b

That's allowed by the [L]GPL itself. A non-contract simply can't 
restrict my "mv" right. A non-contract can't prevent me from 
creating a whole bunch of binary-only copies incorporating GPL'ed 
original and/or derivative work(s) and distribute them under 17 
USC 109 using my own very restrictive contractual terms meant to 
protect my modifications (compilations aside for a moment) as 
trade secrets (clauses like "No Reverse Engineering", etc).

> 
> which isn't allowed by default in copyright law.

Well, not quite.

> 
> Oh, and IBM really doesn't seem to agree with you, and seems to be

Yeah. Devil theories aside for a moment, IBM calls the GPL 
"conscious public covenant". Frankly, I have no idea what that is.

> pushing its (and FSFs, and !yours) view by claiming copyright
> infringement from SCO for adding restrictions...

Bah. Make Your Bet, rms.

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169319
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169194
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169188

regards,
alexander.

--
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=169297