[ANSOL-geral] Fw: Re: Small GPL clarification to check for violation

[Frederico S. Munoz]

Viva,

Recebi a resposta sobre aquela questão da possível infracção da GPL
por parte da PTNet. 

Reparem que o que eu perguntei foi o que retirei das nossas conversas,
não garanto que tenha explicado tudo bem :)

Seja como fôr, e como podem ler, trata-se de uma possível violação da
GPL (ou talvez não). 

Alguém tem informações mais concretas sobre os pontos que têm que ser
esclarecidos? Já sabíamos que a GPL só se aplica quando se distribui,
e como tal o único ponto passível de discussão é o acesso ao código
por parte de a quem foi entregue o binário.

Lembro um ponto importante da GPL que basicamente diz que se por força
de qualquer outro acordo/compromisso/patente qualquer ponto da GPL não
fôr cumprido então a solução é não distribuir o programa a ninguém,
i.e. só a aceitação incondicional dos pontos da GPL sem qualquer outra
obrigação ou limitação dá direito á distribuição do produto.

Ahhh, já tenho o meu mail configurado! O pior disto tudo foi a *$#*!
da chave gpg que foi ao ar :/

Um abraço,

fsm


-------------- Original Message Follows ---------------

Free Software Foundation <licensing arroba gnu.org> writes:

> Hello.
> Please forgive our delay, but both gnu arroba gnu.org and licensing arroba gnu.org
> are under high pressure.
> 
> > I'm sorry to bother you, especially with a GPL question [...]
> 
> You are welcome.
> 
> > [...] There are at least 2 major IRC networks here [...]  some
> > members obtained information about the ircd used by such networks.
> >
> > One of them was GPL with full source available, no problem
> > there... but the other one... well, the ircd was GPL also, *but*the
> > sources are not available.
> 
> That's not good news. However, please note that the license only affects
> people who receive a copy of the binary, not people who use the program
> remotely.
> 
> > The thing is, the are operating under the article that says that an
> > Organization of any kind can make changes and use the software as
> > long as its internal use.
> 
> If the original code is GPL, the code (source or binary) is not
> required to be available to the general public. However, each user
> must be free to change and redistribute copies.  If there is an
> "internal use only" clause somewhere, than this is not a GPL package.
> If it states to be GPL, than it is telling a lie. However, we'd need
> more details about the whole issue.
> 
> > So the situation is like this: the authority that has made the changes
> > makes available *on paper* and *in it's headquarters* the source of
> > the ircd; the organizations that actually run the ircd have the right
> > to go there and consult the source in that media and in that place
> > (and probably without taking notes, copies, etc).
> 
> This is not compliant with the GNU GPL.  However there are two
> possibilities here. Either there is an original GPL work, and this is
> a derived work with additional restrictions, or this is the original
> work.
> 
> In the former case, this is a case of copyright violation, with regard
> to the original author. In the latter case, the author is not
> compliant with the contract it publishes. However, more details are
> needed to give an informed answer (for example, if there is no legal
> proof about the program being under the GPL, the idea about compliance
> above may just not apply).
> 
> Could you please call back licensing arroba gnu.org with more details?
> 
> /alessandro
> -- 
> Alessandro Rubini,
> Licensing Question Volunteer,
> Free Software Foundation