Re: Things you can do with Cygwin

[David Lane <dlane at caffeine dot turner dot com>]

On Wed, 3 May 2000, 13mb80000-HallM(10053584)37x10 wrote:

> 
> > > Does that mean that the two pieces are now separate works?
> > >
> > > So, I think that there must be some other criteria for separating works
> > > other than the existance of alternative implementations and standard
> > > protocols.  I can't say quite what the criteria should be, though...
> > 
> > It wouldn't matter.  You can't retroactively un-violate the GPL.  The
> > first time you distributed the two programs without full source, you
> > violate the GPL.  *If* later they become two works, then *further*
> > distribution would be OK.
> > 
> > As for the criteria, it's simple.  A court would decide.  Otherwise,
> > it's really rather pointless to try to find such borderline cases,
> > unless you *like* going to court just to split hairs.  If you don't
> > know where that fine line is, just stay clear of it.
> 
> I am not considering the GPL implications yet, still thinking about the
> meaning of "a work".  I do realize that this has implications as to how
> the GPL gets applied, though.  Still, it somehow seems pecular if I write
> some code and the number of "works" that I have created can legally
> change later on, well after I have written the last line and shipped
> it off.
> 
> In the original example, creating an extension to a GPL-ed X-server (a
> Y server) and a client that requires this extension, you argued that
> they collectively are a single work.  But, if somebody writes another
> Y server, then suddenly the original pieces are two works.  Even if
> the second Y server is implemented 10 years after the first?  Does it
> matter how well distributed the 2nd implementation is?  Could you just
> start out with 10Mb of all zeros and work through each bit pattern possible,
> assuming that somewhere along the way an alternate implementation is
> created.  If so, then do you have to actually do that work, or could you
> just speculate that such could be created?

Sometimes it is clear from the way in which the works were created that
the intention is that there are two separate works.  Just to use the X
extension analogy, if you were to create a protocol for the extention, and
document that (perhaps publicly), then create a server implementation as a
reference in a GPL X server, then a client implementation in another
(perhaps new for this purpose) GPL program which is released & distributed
separately, you would have two separate works at least as regards the
client and server.  The key points are that, given the separate existence
of the documentation on the extension protocol, the reference implentation
in the server and the client which uses the protocol can be developed
independently and do not strictly depend one upon the other, but rather
both depend on the protocol specification.

This is one reason I dislike having licensed code put into protocol
specifications.  Much better IMHO to have a protocol, and then separately
release a reference implementation.

> It seems that the number of works created should be intrinsic to the act of
> creating them, and not affected by subsequent and possibly unrelated
> activity.
> 
> marcus



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com