GPL compliance

[Scott Kitterman]

On Saturday 01 July 2006 13:00, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> deanlinkous <ulist at gs1.ubuntuforums.org> writes:
> > I am confused as to what you'll are discussing? Someone thinks I need
> > redhats permission to do something with GPL covered software? uh no...
> > next question! :)
>
> Many haven't bothered to keep track of what _was_ being discussed
> (for several good and bad reasons, some my fault), so I'll not
> answer the first question yet another time.
>
Please don't keep repeating this.  You were wrong the first time and it isn't 
improving with repetition.

> But I'll reply to the second one yet another time, with the hope that
> you're not just trying to waste my time.  I never cease to be
> astounded that people can misunderstand such a simple thing so badly.
> I know I'm not a great writer, but I am reasonably good and am sure
> that the fault here is with a few readers too lazy to comprehend.
>
You are right.  It is amazing the simple things that people can misunderstand.  
We probably don't agree about what is being misunderstood.
>
> If Daniel doesn't have Red Hat's permission (AKA license) to the
> copyrights that Red Hat owns for parts of the Linux kernel, then
> Daniel may not legally (re)publish it as he is planning to do.  This
> is just basic copyright law which gives proprietary rights to works of
> authorship and allows it to be licensed (in this case non-exclusively)
> to others.  The text of the GPL used by Red Hat for the GPL'd IP in
> question give terms and conditions for getting and keeping that
> permission.
>
No.  You are correct.  To use someone else's copyright work you need 
permission, but the GPL doesn't give you the terms for getting that 
permission, it GIVES you the permission.  No more permission is needed.

> Repeat for all other GPL-using owners and similarly for owners who use
> other licenses like X's.  Of course, nobody has the time to actually
> do all of this.  They take (minor) legal risks and hope nobody will
> care -- a very good bet.  In this case, Daniel hopes that Ununtu's
> original publisher has done a good job so Daniel doesn't need to do
> all the research to prove himself 100% legally pure.

This is not at all true and would you please stop saying it.

Scott K

P.S.  IANAL, so what I say may be safely ignored.  AFAIK, this is true for 
everyone involved in this thread.  It is way past time for this thread to 
end.  Please stop.  This will be my last post on the topic.