[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright issues

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright issues
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:57:01 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

Anas R. wrote:
Hi all,

Couple of days ago I've released a modified version of the last GPLd version of Notepad2 which was in 2004.
My modifications were:
- The installation and the shell integration
- Refining and formatting the web documentation and associating it with the 
- Replacing graphic items (icons/toolbars)
- Some little modifications in the executable program itself. I've called My work "Notepad3", and I've wrote the following in the "About" dialog:

 Notepad3 1.0
(c) [myname] [year]

Notepad2 1.0.12
(c) Florian Balmar [year]

GPL 2.0 Notice

My question is: Am I broking GPL 2.0? Do I do anything wrong ligally or ethically?
This question will lead to several questions:

What's software?
Code/compiled code?
Code + Documentation + Installation

If the first:
Do little modifications made for specific software deserves a copyright notice?
If the second:
Does the (About) dialog represent the executable program or the product as a 
whole: executable + documentation + installation

Best regards, - Anas R.

You're doing nothing wrong legally, as to the ethics question, you must first determine how long a stick is.

Whose ethics? Yours? Mine? Eben Moglen?

Eben spins absolute legal nonsense to thousands of programmer's in the form of
socialist propaganda masquerading as "legal guidance" from the SFLC. For misleading these people he collects $262K/year from the public's charitable contributions. Is this "ethical"?

The GPL license is an illegal attempt to wrest control of copyright law from the decisions of a democratically elected body (Congress). The programmers who use the GPL have laudable charitable intentions at heart. (The GPL is a third party donee beneficiary contract that confers its purported license benefits on the general public).

Are illegal expectations motivated by charitable intentions "ethical"?

Rjack :)

-- There is a fundamental principle of contract law prohibiting the parties to a contract from binding nonparties. See, e.g., EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002) (“It goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.”). --

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]