Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Martin H. <ma...@mh...>]

Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 22:15:24 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Martin Helm <ma...@mh...> wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 21:39:49 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> >> The BSD allows adding restrictions; GPL does not. So much the facts.
> > 
> > I know that. My comment was the following hope more clearly (and this is
> > not restricted to the discussion about this special website at MC):
> > 
> > How do you or I or anyone else by looking at a code which contains a
> > license (be it BSD or GPL or whatever else) know if one is allowed to
> > use it according to that license which is mentioned in the code if you
> > cannot trace all the places where it was ever uploaded and then
> > downloaded and uploaded and distributed again and knowing for every such
> > site the ToS to judge that on this unknown way the code took there was a
> > place where the ToS was violated, when it is not mentioned in the
> > license?
> > You do not know that from looking at the source codes license, I do not
> > know that and nobody else.
> 
> No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
> the license in the sources.
> 
> > Following the logic that such thing is possible means: Stop using any
> > free software license immediately you never can know if you do not
> > violate a ToS which is not mentioned in the license.
> 
> No, thank you, I won't, I'll just trust my instincts. But you knew that ;)
> 
> >> If you wish, search the previous discussion on this topic. Basically,
> >> there were two fundamental questions:
> >> 
> >> 1. Whether it is legal to add restrictions to BSD code when it's
> >> redistributed without modifications.
> >> 2. Whether it is legal to add such restrictions through an external
> >> ToS agreement.
> > 
> > I allready read this discussions as I follow them for a long time now
> > (and also several years on different places). Either there exist free
> > open source licenses and they are valid or they are worthless.
> 
> Such licenses exist, that's a fact.

Of course they exist and of course I make use of them (since 1990) and luckily 
many other people, no question.
I just wanted to provoke a bit the question what it really means to put 
additional restrictions (in that case by mathworks) onto a license without 
including that restrictions in the license itself and what such a thing really 
means to a user sitting in front of such a license and the code without 
knowing exactly the way it took before  (this restrictions would - if included 
- of course be valid for the case of a BSD and I think also for a MIT license 
and maybe that is anyway the next step they take - just some wild speculation 
from my side).

I also would not include such a piece of code into a FOSS like Gnu Octave (or 
some other FOSS) and I do not really want to be misinterpreted that I would 
advocate such an inclusion (all what I say is anyway only a personal and 
private point of view from an octave user, since I am not in any form  part of 
such a decision process) even if I would give a arm and a leg to ensure that 
it is legal (but I am not a lawyer).

It is anyway the best thing to ask the original author to contribute to octave 
if s/he is interested.

Btw sorry that this discussion was now somewhat off topic.

- Martin