GPL compliance

[ubuntu at rio.vg]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
> ubuntu at rio.vg wrote:
>>
>> It goes like this:
>>
>> 1) By default, a computer program cannot be distributed.
>> 2) The author places the GPL on the program.
>> 3) The program can now be distributed or modified, as long as the
>> requirements are met.
> 
> Is that actually true? I can't believe that (which doesn't
> mean anything, that's certainly true *G*). What should somebody
> stop from distributing his program? Further, I'd rather say,
> that it's the other way around - you need to specify, what's
> not allowed. But that's a guts feeling and very likely depends
> on the country where, hmm, the distributor? (or who?) sits.

By default, it is illegal to distribute someone else's work.  Not just
in the US, but through international treaties and local laws in
virtually every country on the planet.  The person who holds the Copy
Right to a piece of work has the exclusive distribution rights.  This is
the basis of Copyright law.

Read over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

> But it's still hard to believe - what should stop an author
> from distributing his program?

The author, as the holder of the copyright, can set whatever conditions
he likes, or none at all, or sell the copy rights to someone else, or
donate it to the public domain or whatever.

This is why the GPL is so powerful.  Should the GPL be found to be
invalid, current GPL'd programs would not suddenly revert to the public
domain.  Instead, they would revert to their individual copyright
holder's exclusive rights.  This is one of the reasons nobody challenges
the GPL in court.

When the FSF gets wind that stupid-corp X is using GPL'd code in their
product without obeying the restrictions, stupid-corp X can't try and
have the GPL invalidated, otherwise they'll be in potentially MORE hot
water, as they'd be effectively pirating someone's work if they actually
succeeded.

> Well, I suppose you know that this is wrong. For example, the reader
> is allowed to make copies of passages for his use. Or say, we've got
> music - other artists (which are "readers", end users) may use short
> clips for their own music.
> 
> So, no, the end user is never without rights. At least not yet.

Well, the "Fair Use" doctrine doesn't really enter into this.  You can't
distribute software programs on the basis of "fair use".  Furthermore,
"Fair Use" is what you are allowed to do with the copy you have.  It
doesn't give you the right to demand anything of the publisher.

>> To go further, let's say I wrote a book and gave Random House the right
>> to freely publish it, as long as they also put an extra chapter up on
>> the internet for anyone to read.  The person who buys the book isn't
>> guaranteed to be able to read it on the net, as they might not have net
>> access.
>>
>> Furthermore, let's say Random House decides they don't feel like putting
>> up the chapter on the net.  Does the "user" of the book have the right
>> to sue?  No.  Random House is smart enough not to mention that as part
>> of the purchase.  However, the author can certainly sue, as Random House
>> has violated the license he gave them.
> 
> I don't understand what you're getting at.

Well, let's start substituting into the above case.  Replace "book" with
software program, Random House with Ubuntu, and the chapter on the
internet with the GPL source code clause.

Ubuntu, in order to be allowed to distribute programs that are licensed
under the GPL, has to meet the GPL requirements, which includes
providing the source code in a form that is commonly used.