[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyright issues
Re: Copyright issues
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:57:01 -0400
Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (Windows/20080421)
Anas R. wrote:
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:
(c) [myname] [year]
(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:
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
- 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
Are illegal expectations motivated by charitable intentions "ethical"?
-- 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