From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T13:41:44+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 01:31:33PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:55:06 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Now, I really think that the GPL is different from a bubble-suit.
> > You do not need to take any action to protect from the GPL. If you
> > end up with GPL code in your application, and you do not take any
> > action, your application is still not GPL.
> 
> Highly debatable and not determined by law or caselaw. The armchair
> lawyers at /. have suggested that SCO may have possibly included
> "proprietary" code with the GPLed code that they sent, or vice-versa
> (particularly for the Linux compatibility layer) and doing so could
> expose SCO to a massive violation of the GPL.

I think you misunderstood what I said.  Allow me to illustrate.  Consider 
the following sequential steps:

1) I have a propietary program.
2) I include GPL code into it (assume it's by mistake if you like).
3) I release my program under my own license.
4) I (or someone else) realize that this program contains GPL code.

At this point, the people who have already received my program do not 
automatically receive GPL rights to it.  You are safe.  However, I
should cease distribution of my program.


The SCO case refers to the opposite migration of code, and to SCO 
releaseing the code under the GPL.  You can't blame the GPL if you release 
something under the GPL and later decide you didn't want to.  In this way, 
the GPL is no different from (say) the BSD.


> > You do not have to do anything to prevent your applications from
> > becomming GPL, even after foreign GPL code has been included.
> 
> Again, highly debatable, and this statement is likely *untrue*
> because of the terms of the GPL itself.

Whether I am right or not in my assertion that the GPL is not viral 
depends on the validity of this statement.  If the GPL can make your code 
GPL without your agreeing to that, then the GPL is viral.

See my statement above to see why I assert the GPL is not viral.


> the combined work must have the GPL, which effectively overrides my 
> choice of BSD as a licence.

It does not.  See my example above.

> > If I thought that your bubble analogy was correct, in that you
> > have to protect youself, I would agree with this statement.
> 
> You do have to protect yourself: you have to make sure you don't use
> GPLed code in software that you don't want to become GPLed.

If you had to protect yourself, I would agree to its virality.
You do not have to protect yourself.  See my example above.

- -- 
Daniel Carrera         | OpenPGP fingerprint:
Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
UMD  (301) 405-5137    | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (SunOS)

iD8DBQE/DkABnxE8DWHf+OcRAo/SAKCQbBCpGrF59D9hqeULRXzZqrKcHQCdEvi8
8kBH5e/o0V9N1x9Cyvo1JI8=
=p1+g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----