Re: From the LuxAsm list.

From: Alex McDonald (alex_mcd_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 08/20/04 

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:15:35 +0000 (UTC)

"Frank Kotler" <fbkotler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41264476.958925DE@comcast.net...
> Betov wrote:
>
> > > Does the RosAsm License require that a program written using RosAsm be
> > > released under the RosAsm License?"
> > >
> > > RosAsm license is compatible with GPL. [...]
> >
> > It seems to me that Frank was, like many others, failing
> > to understand the meaning of "derivative works", and that
> > your post, guga, does not really and simply answer to his
> > real question.
>
> I believe I *do* understand the meaning of the term "derivative work" as
> it's usually defined. Your homemade license appears to define it in a
> manner I'm not familiar with.
>
> > His real question was: "Is a PE computed by RosAsm forced
> > to GPL?" (the classical achievement of Hutch-- and friends
> > vile propaganda against the GPL that pushes the readers to
> > believe in the so famous "GPL inherability"...).
>
> No. I'm not asking anything about GPL. RosAsm is not released under GPL.

You're so right.

>
> > The answer is: No, The Applications created with a GPL Tool
> > have no other License but the one choosen by the Programmer.
>
> Right. I understand the GPL. What about the "RosAsm License Agreement"?

Nonsense on Betov's part; see clause 5 of the RosAsm licence.

>
> > I am afraid that many will not understand that you are talking
> > about _reusing_ RosAsm itself (or significative part(s) of it),
> > for creating one another Tool, and to _re-distribute_ it, under
> > a non-GPL License, what is, of course, and hopefully, utterly
> > forbidden - what the Anti-GPL Mouvement calls "the Viral side
> > of the GPL... :)) :)) :)) -.
>
> I don't want to hear any more bullshit from you about GPL! Let's talk
> about *your* homemade license. RosAsm isn't released under GPL, so any
> discussion about what GPL (or "anti-GPL") does or doesn't do is
> irrelevant. Your talk about GPL, when RosAsm *isn't* GPL, sounds a lot
> like "lies and swindlings" to me.

It's just a mish mash.

There are two licences, the GPL and the RosAsm licence. The GPL doesn't have
any force as a licence, because the RosAsm licence clearly contradicts it --
and it's a mess. In fact, a court might declare _both_ licences
unenforceable as a consequence, and standard copyright law would apply.

RosAsm -- "20. The License does not apply and the Program and all it's
'derivative works', 'works based on the Program' and documents, tutorials,
demos and all related material, are forbidden to be used, copied,
distributed, translated, analyzed, modified, and perform any of the acts
described on this License, by military, Para-military, political, or any
Governmental Agencies, Organizations, Institutes and related personal/staff
of any Country, especially when the purpose of the usage of the Program is
related to them."

Which is as clear as mud (what in Heaven's name is an Institute doing in
this list?), and contradicts the GPL, which only permits geographical
restrictions based on patent. The RosAsm licence is certainly not a GPL
licence, or even any licence that the OSI would recognise; the OSI
explicitly state that; "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups; The
license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." and
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor; The license must not restrict
anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For
example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or
from being used for genetic research."

Or how about

RosAsm -- "5 - The Licensee is free to use RosAsm to build his/her own and
independent programs, which means building a 'work based on the Program', he
agrees to create them respecting all terms of this License whether the
program is focused to improve the Open Source and Free Software movement,
whether it is focused to Commercial applications, inserting a small
reference that his/her application was built using RosAsm followed by
RosAsm's notice of copyright."

That's nonsense _and_ extremely viral. No GPL compiler/assembler I know of
has such a clause; that the output of the program (and presumably the input)
must "respect all terms of this License"!

Betov should stick with the GPL, or a properly drawn up open licence; there
are plenty at http://www.opensource.org/. For what everyone apart from Betov
means by open source, see http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. 

-- 
Regards
Alex McDonald

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... You have _read_ the licence, ... themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those ... This is why kernel modules can have their own, ... by the GPL. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Artistic License (license to steal?) - Open Source copyrights
    ... as GPL. ... of what's actually in the licence you agree to by using the software. ... Although theoretically either license could be changed, ... labels Perl's artistic license as potentially viral," said Wall, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Picking a license
    ... he's not suggesting a permissive license instead.)" ... available under a GPL-compatible licence. ... people complain about how the GPL ... difficult for RMS to bully Python into relicensing. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Picking a license
    ... you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library" post. ... under a GPL-compatible licence." ... -- he wrote the license" which is basically what I've been saying all ... readline was the hook that sucked him into ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • RE: GPL weasels and the atheros stink
    ... under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. ... GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and distribute the ...
    (Linux-Kernel)