patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 00:54 (#K56Q) they produce patches, not redistrib. linux. its their code, and patch, and thus should be able to do what they want, no?that aside, im upvoting because the full version of the story sounds quite interesting. they themselves are tired of seeing GPL violations, among other complaints, leading to their decision Re: patches (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 02:00 (#K5A1) Patches are necessarily derivative code, so covered by the license.However the GPL never said you have to make your code freely available to the public. It's just that once you give it out, you can't stop anyone else from redistributing it, if they want to. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 14:14 (#K731) >It's not in violation of any spirit either, as there's nothing that says they have to give you their things, as copyright holders.Their work is a derivative work.The contributors to linux very likely intended that any derivative works also be distributed. If any contributor to linux intended this, there may very well be an unwritten clause in the contract which exists between the parties, part of which exists in the form of the document you know as a "copyright license" (WTF did you think it was? A royal patent?). Rarely does a court decide a dispute of this sort solely on the four corners of a document. Only when the document is wholly integrated does that occur.I don't see those words there in the GPLv2. (Even if those words exist, action taken by the parties can be used as evidence against this, if the court allows the evidence of such to be presented). Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:08 (#K8VX) just to clarify, would a patch not be a derivative work until actually applied to licensed code? on its own its just code, (EDIT: retracted, this statement made sense: "When the secondwork makes sense only in light of the original, it's derivative.") and owned by the author. they don't have to release publicly.And even if said-patch does infact fall under GPL, the GNU-GPL FAQ makes it clear that you can sell modified versions of GPL code to a client and not release publicly, and its up to the client whether they want to keep the modified version internal, or release it. The only thing that forces public source release, is to likewise distribute any part in any form, to the public.If that client were to release the modified version, they would need to supply the source, but if kept internally, then no. By requiring a subscription or contract, i'd imagine thats the loop hole that allows private sale/distribution without violating the gpl (if i'm understanding that correctly.) It sounds like this company is ensuring paid-clients are supporting their efforts, while preventing every other company from doing a drive-by-only download instead. It sounds more than reasonable. In the end, the code is still going to make it to the public, eventually. Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:15 (#K8W0) this would make for a good public discussion, if anyone else would like to up-vote? my feelings still are that the bigger story is the one presented by the company, and not the claim that said-company could be violating the gpl; although commentary for both would be interesting. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-03 13:29 (#KAN2) Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 02:00 (#K5A1) Patches are necessarily derivative code, so covered by the license.However the GPL never said you have to make your code freely available to the public. It's just that once you give it out, you can't stop anyone else from redistributing it, if they want to. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 14:14 (#K731) >It's not in violation of any spirit either, as there's nothing that says they have to give you their things, as copyright holders.Their work is a derivative work.The contributors to linux very likely intended that any derivative works also be distributed. If any contributor to linux intended this, there may very well be an unwritten clause in the contract which exists between the parties, part of which exists in the form of the document you know as a "copyright license" (WTF did you think it was? A royal patent?). Rarely does a court decide a dispute of this sort solely on the four corners of a document. Only when the document is wholly integrated does that occur.I don't see those words there in the GPLv2. (Even if those words exist, action taken by the parties can be used as evidence against this, if the court allows the evidence of such to be presented). Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:08 (#K8VX) just to clarify, would a patch not be a derivative work until actually applied to licensed code? on its own its just code, (EDIT: retracted, this statement made sense: "When the secondwork makes sense only in light of the original, it's derivative.") and owned by the author. they don't have to release publicly.And even if said-patch does infact fall under GPL, the GNU-GPL FAQ makes it clear that you can sell modified versions of GPL code to a client and not release publicly, and its up to the client whether they want to keep the modified version internal, or release it. The only thing that forces public source release, is to likewise distribute any part in any form, to the public.If that client were to release the modified version, they would need to supply the source, but if kept internally, then no. By requiring a subscription or contract, i'd imagine thats the loop hole that allows private sale/distribution without violating the gpl (if i'm understanding that correctly.) It sounds like this company is ensuring paid-clients are supporting their efforts, while preventing every other company from doing a drive-by-only download instead. It sounds more than reasonable. In the end, the code is still going to make it to the public, eventually. Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:15 (#K8W0) this would make for a good public discussion, if anyone else would like to up-vote? my feelings still are that the bigger story is the one presented by the company, and not the claim that said-company could be violating the gpl; although commentary for both would be interesting. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-03 13:29 (#KAN2) Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 14:14 (#K731) >It's not in violation of any spirit either, as there's nothing that says they have to give you their things, as copyright holders.Their work is a derivative work.The contributors to linux very likely intended that any derivative works also be distributed. If any contributor to linux intended this, there may very well be an unwritten clause in the contract which exists between the parties, part of which exists in the form of the document you know as a "copyright license" (WTF did you think it was? A royal patent?). Rarely does a court decide a dispute of this sort solely on the four corners of a document. Only when the document is wholly integrated does that occur.I don't see those words there in the GPLv2. (Even if those words exist, action taken by the parties can be used as evidence against this, if the court allows the evidence of such to be presented). Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:08 (#K8VX) just to clarify, would a patch not be a derivative work until actually applied to licensed code? on its own its just code, (EDIT: retracted, this statement made sense: "When the secondwork makes sense only in light of the original, it's derivative.") and owned by the author. they don't have to release publicly.And even if said-patch does infact fall under GPL, the GNU-GPL FAQ makes it clear that you can sell modified versions of GPL code to a client and not release publicly, and its up to the client whether they want to keep the modified version internal, or release it. The only thing that forces public source release, is to likewise distribute any part in any form, to the public.If that client were to release the modified version, they would need to supply the source, but if kept internally, then no. By requiring a subscription or contract, i'd imagine thats the loop hole that allows private sale/distribution without violating the gpl (if i'm understanding that correctly.) It sounds like this company is ensuring paid-clients are supporting their efforts, while preventing every other company from doing a drive-by-only download instead. It sounds more than reasonable. In the end, the code is still going to make it to the public, eventually. Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:15 (#K8W0) this would make for a good public discussion, if anyone else would like to up-vote? my feelings still are that the bigger story is the one presented by the company, and not the claim that said-company could be violating the gpl; although commentary for both would be interesting. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-03 13:29 (#KAN2) Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:08 (#K8VX) just to clarify, would a patch not be a derivative work until actually applied to licensed code? on its own its just code, (EDIT: retracted, this statement made sense: "When the secondwork makes sense only in light of the original, it's derivative.") and owned by the author. they don't have to release publicly.And even if said-patch does infact fall under GPL, the GNU-GPL FAQ makes it clear that you can sell modified versions of GPL code to a client and not release publicly, and its up to the client whether they want to keep the modified version internal, or release it. The only thing that forces public source release, is to likewise distribute any part in any form, to the public.If that client were to release the modified version, they would need to supply the source, but if kept internally, then no. By requiring a subscription or contract, i'd imagine thats the loop hole that allows private sale/distribution without violating the gpl (if i'm understanding that correctly.) It sounds like this company is ensuring paid-clients are supporting their efforts, while preventing every other company from doing a drive-by-only download instead. It sounds more than reasonable. In the end, the code is still going to make it to the public, eventually. Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:15 (#K8W0) this would make for a good public discussion, if anyone else would like to up-vote? my feelings still are that the bigger story is the one presented by the company, and not the claim that said-company could be violating the gpl; although commentary for both would be interesting. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-03 13:29 (#KAN2) Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-03 00:15 (#K8W0) this would make for a good public discussion, if anyone else would like to up-vote? my feelings still are that the bigger story is the one presented by the company, and not the claim that said-company could be violating the gpl; although commentary for both would be interesting. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-03 13:29 (#KAN2) Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-03 13:29 (#KAN2) Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 00:33 (#KCJY) you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-04 14:04 (#KEBM) As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case (You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffscan testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not woThis is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.