Thesis and the GPL
andrewnacin.com
Thesis and the GPL
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#2There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now, even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL.
Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-Desist that precedes the suit). The courts will then determine whether or not Thesis is indeed GPL, or whether the distribution was in violation of Pearson's intellectual property rights.
Until someone actually does this, the debate will continue - there's enough ambiguity that the issue won't be resolved until ruled upon by the courts. I really doubt Matt/Automattic will push the issue - there's a lot to lose and almost nothing to gain. (Matt said in a previous thread he thinks Thesis' code is "junk" and doesn't want it in core.)
Until Thesis is publicly distributed and legally challenged, the status quo will continue: Thesis will effectively be private code, and Pearson's position will prevail.
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#3I can tell if he's guilty. I just look at SCO. Emporer has no cloths. I can tell how much Microsoft has sinned by how much piracy.
God does justice.
It's almost like laws of physics. Atheists are the stupidest animals. Get smacked all the time and can't figure-out why.
24 20 When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. 25 Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. 26 21 At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.' 27 Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan. 28 When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. 22 He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, 'Pay back what you owe.' 29 Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30 But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt. 31 Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair. 32 His master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to. 33 Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?' 34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt. 23 35 24 So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart."
Hello! This is how God's world works, ya animal morons.
11 8 Give us today our daily bread; 12 and forgive us our debts, 9 as we forgive our debtors; 13 and do not subject us to the final test, 10 but deliver us from the evil one. 14 11 If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
Why is it you can't sell your hobby software or music?
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#4Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#5There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…
I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to confusion as in your comment.
IANAL, but the following is my understanding based on the my lack of awareness of anyone licensing code as GPL (even the FSF) who has ever claimed that what you suggest is legal.
Thesis is currently under whatever proprietary license Pearson distributes it under. He probably is legally required to distribute it only under the GPL. There are two obvious ways he can deal with this: stop distributing it or distribute it under the GPL. In the event that he takes the latter path, then people will be able to legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis. However, for now, no one has any license to Thesis' code other than what Pearson has granted them.
The GPL can't force code to be released under the GPL. It can only forbid releasing it under other terms.
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#6Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?
If by doing so you violate copyright law by using someone else's code in a way disallowed by the license under which you got access to the code in the first place, then yes.
(I'm not well enough versed in this particular debate to weigh in, but there is an answer to that question, in general, and it hinges on specific details of one's implementation of "creating something.")
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#7Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?
It is illegal to take someone else's copyrighted code and create derivative works of and redistribute it in ways they have expressly forbidden you to do so in the license which gives you your right to use it.
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#8There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…
It does not actually work like this. I am sure Thesis does include at least some original (i.e., not previously GPLed) work. Thus, the person that created that original work is the proper copyright holder. Thus, if you copy Thesis you will be guilty of copyright infringement, and the fact that it does include some GPL code won't help you.
As the matter now stands, if it is true that they use GPLed code, that means that whoever distributes Thesis is guilty of copyright infringement, which means that the owner of the original GPLed code can sue Thesis for lots of money. But that does not mean that anyone can copy Thesis.
Put in other words, the viral effect of the GPL is not automatic. If you use GPLed code in your code it does not mean that your code is automatically GPLed. It means that you have a choice to (i) voluntarily GPL your code, (ii) get rid of the GPLed code from your code or (iii) be guilty of copyright infringement and face the consequences.
This is intended as an intellectual discussion of the matter and is not legal advice.
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#9Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?
No. Copyright infringement is a crime, however.
Re: Thesis and the GPL
#10Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?
No. Copyright infringement is a crime, however.
Arguably pedantic note: under most jurisdictions, copyright infringement is a non-criminal offense in civil law.