Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >>
> >> Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> >> > Many contracts don't require signing. Google "manifestation of assent".
> >> > One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted
> >> > under it.
> >>
> >> But the GNU GPL is a Copyright *license* not a contract.
> >
> > Sez who? (Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.)
> 
> The GPL:
> 
>       5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
>     not signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to
>     modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These
>     actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
>     Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
>     based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
>     License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
>     distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
> 

To quote Hollaar (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html)

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3cf3e9ee08d2837b

-----
Just because the GPL states something doesn't make it so.  In particular,
there are a couple of mistatements of the law there.

The first is that "nothing else grants you permission to modify ...
the Program."

17 USC 117(a) DOES grant that permission in a special, but important
instance:
       Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
    infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
    make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
    that computer program provided:
    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential
    step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction
    with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ...

There is nothing in the GPL that says that a person is not the "owner
of a copy" of the program.  So, as long as the adaptation (modification)
is "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine" it is permitted without the GPL.

The second is that "nothing else grants you permission to ...
distribute the program."

17 USC 109(a) states that:
       Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner
    of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
    title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled,
    without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise
    dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

However, you can't dispose of the possession of a computer program by
rental or lending.  See 17 USC 109(b).

So, a more accurate statement would be:
    However, nothing else grants you permission to modify AND
    distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
    prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

(The stuff about signing the license is a little wierd, too.  It's not
really clear the point that is being made.  Perhaps it's trying to say
that since you haven't signed the license, you haven't accepted its
terms yet, but will have to if you are going to perform an act that
requires a permission giving in the license.)
------

regards,
alexander.