When will Betov come clean on GPL ?
hutch--
a GNU Organisation GPL licence, it is a licence written by Guga for
Betov with his RosAsm project. Now this is of course Betov's right to
licence his software in any way he likes but it is directly DISHONEST
to claim that it is a GNU Organisation GPL licence when it is not.
Betov imposes conditions on a user over and above the GPL system and
this is while supporting the proprietry Microsoft Windows operating
system and a dead in the water clone of it. GPL has its major working
example in the LINUX operating system that was built under the GPL
licence yet Betov does not support the GPL flagship, he is a WINDOWS
man.
Claiming to be GPL when it clearly is not is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION of
the GNU organisation. Betov needs to come clean and IMMEDIATELY stop
claiming that he represents "Open source", "GPL licencing" when all he
is doing is supplying a broken assembler under his own private licence.
SHAME ON YOU BETOV !!!
Trying to capitalise on they years of hard work that the programmers
who wrote the LINUX operating system have done to flog your own crappy
political agenda.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
Alex
maybe you should give it a rest.
stop feeding the trolls
"hutch--" <hu...@movsd.com> wrote in message
news:1122507241....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
hutch--
Its the beginning of a new bullsh*t filter, Betov stops claiming his
work is GPL or Betov gets his ear burnt. The burner will last longer
than Betov's ear. :)
Dave Turner
hutch--
You are probably right but it will still fry Betov. Too long have I
heard him waxing lyrical about GPL when he does not even support it
himself. Nothing new, free code for Betov then no-one can use Betov's
code. Not that most would want to but it makes a mockery of his claim
to be GPL.
Regards,
rand...@earthlink.net
hutch-- wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Its the beginning of a new bullsh*t filter, Betov stops claiming his
> work is GPL or Betov gets his ear burnt. The burner will last longer
> than Betov's ear. :)
Here is the notice that appears at the beginning of the RosAsm source
file:
Copyright (C) 1998, René Tournois
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by
the Free Software Foundation.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be
useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License included in B_U_Asm.exe for more
details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
02111-1307 USA
In B_U_ASM he lists version 2 of the GPL.
He also lists the RosAsm license, but the RosAsm source code itself
claims it is covered under GPL, not RPL. Rene et. al. would have a hard
time getting the RPL to stick in a court of law as the source code
makes no mention of the RPL. Because the GPL and RPL are incompatible,
I'm sure anyone could legally choose whichever license they're happiest
with and go with that. So in that sense, RosAsm *is* GPL.
The RPL seems to be a (poorly-written) document that attempts to do a
CYA on the disassembler. IOW, "don't hold us responsible if someone
breaks the law using our disassembler."
Of course, no one in their right mind is going to adhere to the RPL.
It's unlikely that anyone outside the core RosAsm development team
would actually do anything with the RosAsm source code, but the RPL
goes much farther than this -- it places restrictions on your own code
you develop with RosAsm. Quoting the RPL:
5 - The Licensee is free to use RosAsm to build his/her own and
independent programs, which means building a 'work based on the
Program', he agrees to create them respecting all terms of this License
whether the program is focused to improve the Open Source and Free
Software movement, whether it is focused to Commercial applications,
inserting a small reference that his/her application was built using
RosAsm followed by RosAsm's notice of copyright.
IOW, the author of a program written with RosAsm is *forced* to add a
message to the program acknowledging the use of RosAsm and appending
the RosAsm copyright notice. Given that Rene does *not* hold any
copyright on the program created by the RosAsm user, this requirement
is absurd. Who knows? Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong. For a legal
document it contains a *large* number of English errors, making it
completely undefensible in a court of law, but the intent in the above
paragraph, for example, seems to be to force RosAsm users to promote
RosAsm in their own private applications. And Rene has the nerve to
claim that others are "self-promoting". :-)
Interestingly enough, the license goes on to say:
7 - This License only covers the activities focused on the building of
'derivative version', 'derivative works', translations, building
documents and others related to the improvement of RosAsm, as specified
above in Sections 2, 3 and 4. Activities described in Sections 5 and 6
are not covered by this License, because they are outside its scope and
therefore, needs to have their own and independent License that best
fits their usage.
How can point (5) suggest that they must attach a RosAsm copyright
notice and then section (7) says that this license doesn't cover (5)?
Are sections (5) and (6) a separate license? The language makes no
sense.
Now consider:
13 - You may not copy, analyze, use, modify, sublicense, or distribute
the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any
attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program
is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you
under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as
such parties remain in full compliance.
This is in contradiction to the source code which claims a GPL license.
This would also imply that RPL supercedes the GPL. Again, the confusion
in the licensing pretty much makes the RPL null and void (indeed, one
would think that it makes the entire license on RosAsm null and void).
Moving forward:
14 - You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work derived on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
The "nothing else" clause is particularly troublesome. Does not the
RosAsm team allow the GPL to be applied instead (at the user's desire)?
Again, contradictory.
Of course, there is the infamous "section 20" that is highly
discriminatory and definitely non-GPL.
Then again, the whole concern about the RPL being non-GPL and non-free,
despite Rene's machinations to the contrary, really aren't much of an
issue. Outside of the small core of RosAsm developers, no one is going
to use source code from RosAsm in their own projects and, for that
matter, almost no one develops software using RosAsm, so whatever
license Rene wants to attach to it, and the legal and ethical
consequences of such a license are irrelevant. Such licenses would only
have meaning if people actually *used* the product.
It would be interesting to see Rene provide actual clarification
concerning the license. Do you have a choice of RPL or GPL? Does one
license apply and not the other? What's the deal? AFAIKT, the GPL
applies because that's the copyright notice that appears at the
beginning of the source file. RPL's presence in B_U_ASM appears to be
an enigma because the source code doesn't claim that the RPL applies.
Clearly the two licenses are incompatible. So Rene needs to choose one
(or say the user can choose one) and update the copyright notices
accordingly.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Donkey
completely invalid from the view of contract law. Rene has stated that
many people have contributed to RosAsm, those people contributed their
copyrighted code (copyright is always defaulted to the actual author)
and did so under the assumption that the code was for a GPL project.
Since all of the code in RosAsm was not written by Betov himself he has
no legal authority to modify or abridge the original copyright without
written permission of every contributor, even those who no longer happen
to use RosAsm and I doubt he ever got that from Jimmy Cliff or the
others he offended along the way. His only option is to remove all code
not written by himself (along with anyone else who wishes to
participate) and release that portion under a different license.
Donkey
rand...@earthlink.net
Donkey wrote:
> >
> There is no question of contradiction in the license, the RPL is
> completely invalid from the view of contract law. Rene has stated that
> many people have contributed to RosAsm, those people contributed their
> copyrighted code (copyright is always defaulted to the actual author)
> and did so under the assumption that the code was for a GPL project.
> Since all of the code in RosAsm was not written by Betov himself he has
> no legal authority to modify or abridge the original copyright without
> written permission of every contributor, even those who no longer happen
> to use RosAsm and I doubt he ever got that from Jimmy Cliff or the
> others he offended along the way. His only option is to remove all code
> not written by himself (along with anyone else who wishes to
> participate) and release that portion under a different license.
>
> Donkey
Good point.
But I still don't see where the RPL is actually applied to RosAsm other
than in the RPL itself. The RosAsm source file references only the GPL
AFAICT. I have no idea why they even stuck the RPL in the documentation
other than to cover their butts with respect to the disassembler (and
even there, that was a lame clause in the contract).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Beth
> I have no idea why they even stuck the RPL in the documentation
> other than to cover their butts with respect to the disassembler (and
> even there, that was a lame clause in the contract).
Even that's a bit weird in respect of the fact that the GPL already
covers it in section 12:
"12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY
OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
That's what this "standard" bit of "ALL CAPS legalese" is included in
nearly every licence for...it's the "covering your arse clause" of the
licence...
Stripping the irrelevent parts which wouldn't apply in this particular
context:
"IN NO EVENT...WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER...BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
DAMAGES...ARISING OUT OF THE USE...[OF] THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING ...
LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU ...), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER ... HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILIT OF SUCH DAMAGES"
This clause appears almost word-for-word in nearly every licence you'll
ever see because it covers this "what people use the software for is NOT
the responsibility of the author" disclaimer (and it's no doubt
literally copied verbatim word-for-word in most licences because this
exact wording has actually been tested in a court of law as being valid
(??)...or, at least, some serious lawyers have looked at it to confirm
its "watertightedness" from liability for damages...that everyone
basically copies out the same wording "as is" in order to benefit from
that same "watertight" legal protection...at least, this would usually
be the reason why we find absolutely nigh-on identical wording, even in
licences that are completely different and unrelated...Microsoft's
licences, for example, basically have nearly identical wording to this
too)...
Hence, what the user does with the disassembler is NOT the
responsibility of the authors...this GPL clause already covers that (it
has to, as well, because "modifications" and "additions" are
specifically prohibited in the GPL)...
The fact that you may have been "advised" that someone may misuse the
disassembler's capabilities for an illegal purpose also does NOT
invalidate the above, which specifically states that the author is still
excused because what other people do with the software is simply NOT the
author's responsibility...at all...ever...in any way...at any time...for
any purpose...period...
Similar to those "mobile phone scanners": There's NOTHING at all illegal
in the design, construction and even sale of such equipment...you're
only breaking the law by _USING_ them in an unauthorised way...again,
the manufacturer of such equipment is completely excused
responsibility...yes, even though, in this case, there seems to be NO
OTHER PURPOSE - which isn't illegal - to which you could ever use such
equipment because the only thing it is capable of doing is an illegal
act...nevertheless, you can build and sell as many of them as you
like...the illegality is in the _USE_, so the manufacturer does nothing
illegal in producing and selling the equipment (though, it's a good
question how they "test" them to see if they work...within a "confined
space" where the only people they could pick up with the "scanner" is
themselves and they "authorise" themselves to eavesdrop on themselves??
That's one possible way to "circumvent" the whole "it's illegal to even
turn the thing on" issue, perhaps? :)...
Also, section 11 is partially relevent too:
"11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK
AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION."
Again, stripping away the irrelevent:
"11. ...THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. ... THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ... PROVIDE THE PROGRAM 'AS
IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY ... INCLUDING ... FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
THE ENTIRE RISK ... IS WITH YOU"
This also, on the "fitness for a particular purpose" clause covers the
arse of the disassembler author...you make "no warranty" that the
software is or isn't suitable for any "particular purpose"...including
its use in violating or not violating someone else's licence or
copyright (indeed, as clearly stated in the "legalese", including _ANY_
use of the program whatsoever, whatever the hell it is ;)..."not my
problem, guv'nor!", so to speak...
These two clauses cover the disassembler author from the "product" of
its use, in exactly the same way that an assembler author would equally
NOT be responsible for a user "abusing" the capabilities of the
assembler for an illegal use: For example, writing virus code...if a
virus was written with VC++, then Microsoft are NOT liable for the
damages of the _PRODUCT_ of using their tools...section 12 here covers
that...and there seems no objective difference - nothing law would
discern or make distinct, anyhow - between the "product" of an
assembler - a program - or the product of a disassembler: Source code...
I don't see that, really, a disassembler needs to "cover its arse" in
the licence, anymore than the GPL (and other licences because basically
nearly every single one has these two "no warranty" and "no liability"
clauses inserted into them somewhere) already does...I don't myself see
that there was any reason to "stray" from the pure GPL and invent the
RPL at all, if the concern was about "liability" from writing a
disassembler: The GPL already covers it...whatever use (or abuse) the
user makes of your product is NONE of your business or liability or
responsibility...
As I see it, the "product" of a disassembler - source code - is NOT
discernably different from the product of an assembler - binary
executables - in the context that, in writing an assembler, the author
is NOT responsible for any users writing illegal viruses with it (what
they produce with the tool is _THEIRS_, nothing to do with the author of
the tool at all: THEIR code, THEIR copyright, THEIR responsibility,
THEIR crime if something "evil" is done with the tool and so
forth)...so, if the disassembler is "abused" for an illegal activity
then the author of the disassembler is equally "not liable", in exactly
the same way that an assembler author ain't liable for people writing
illegal viruses with an assembler...just because it works in the other
direction makes no difference here because law sees _ALL_ software
equally and treats it as "written material" (same basic laws as books
and publications and such)...
So, if Rene did invent the RPL to cover this, then it was a wasted
effort (and, indeed, as it's now technically "dubious" to whether the
RPL or the GPL applies - it's all very ambiguous - then Rene might be,
ironically, _RISKING_ being "liable" by accident of messing around with
the licences, when if he'd left it alone with the GPL, his arse was
already covered)...and he's given up on the GPL and the "copyleft"
movement over what, in fact, is a completely unjustified concern...
Mind you, fair play to Rene: "Legalese" is nigh-on impossible to read
even when English is your first language...when English isn't your
primary language, being sure that your arse is properly covered when the
"clauses" are, indeed, written in such an "inpenetrable legalese" way is
an understandable worry...but an unjustified one in this case: The GPL
folks already thought of it and sections 11 and 12 are the "standard"
disclaimer which basically excuses you practically everything (heck,
section 11 means you don't even have to write a program that does what
it says it should do...section 11 means it doesn't even have to work
properly or even work at all...section 11 means you can hand out broken
crap and you're still scot-free...this could be called the "Microsoft
clause"...the "even if the OS crashes and planes fall out of the sky and
the seas boil and millions die...then you _STILL_ can't extract even a
single cent of compensation out of us" clause that keeps Microsoft from
becoming instantly bankrupt, as if everyone sued over all those BSODs
we've all met over the decades that _HAS_, indeed, lead to "data loss",
even their billions wouldn't save them from what would be the largest
"class action" in all of human history...section 11 and its equivalent
in the Microsoft licences reads basically as "screw you!", no matter
what "evil" the software might actually perpertrate! Tough cookies! If
you don't like it, then don't use the software! Screw you! ;)...
Of course, just to do a bit of "disclaiming" myself:
I'm NOT an "authority" in these matters and this is NOT anything other
than a personal opinion from a complete non-expert mouthing off in a
thoroughly informal and casual way on an informal and casual discussion
forum which has NO authority or place in legal matters or discussions
(and is just "chat" and nothing else), who should NOT be taken seriously
without consultation with a legal expert who DOES know what the hell
they are talking about to confirm or deny, in whole or in part, how much
crap I am or am not talking here...
I'm NOT a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice...I'm NOT a baker and this
is NOT a steak and kidney pie...I'm NOT Michelangelo and this is NOT the
roof of the Sistine Chapel...I'm NOT a blacksmith and this is NOT an
ornamental iron gate...blah-blah-blah...
Beth :)
C
> Claiming to be GPL when it clearly is not is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION of
> the GNU organisation.
I'm not an expert, but surely this would be a trademark violation not
a copyright violation.
C
2005-07-30
(Why am I reading hutch-- posts, they are _alomost_ as void of
content as the average 'Rene Rant', and never as funny.)
rand...@earthlink.net
Beth wrote:
>
> Similar to those "mobile phone scanners": There's NOTHING at all illegal
> in the design, construction and even sale of such equipment...you're
> only breaking the law by _USING_ them in an unauthorised way...again,
> the manufacturer of such equipment is completely excused
> responsibility...yes, even though, in this case, there seems to be NO
> OTHER PURPOSE - which isn't illegal - to which you could ever use such
> equipment because the only thing it is capable of doing is an illegal
> act...nevertheless, you can build and sell as many of them as you
> like...the illegality is in the _USE_, so the manufacturer does nothing
> illegal in producing and selling the equipment (though, it's a good
> question how they "test" them to see if they work...within a "confined
> space" where the only people they could pick up with the "scanner" is
> themselves and they "authorise" themselves to eavesdrop on themselves??
> That's one possible way to "circumvent" the whole "it's illegal to even
> turn the thing on" issue, perhaps? :)...
Actually, recent legal results against file distribution sites and
software suggest that this assumption is *not* true. If a device can
only be used for illegal purposes, then the manufacturer/developer can
be held liable. But that's a different issue (and a thorny ethical one,
at that).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
rand...@earthlink.net
C wrote:
> hutch-- wrote:
>
> > Claiming to be GPL when it clearly is not is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION of
> > the GNU organisation.
>
> I'm not an expert, but surely this would be a trademark violation not
> a copyright violation.
Or a license violation :-) (I'm quite sure many people feel that GPL
has been violated by the RPL :-)).
I wonder if the GPL copyright is GPL'd? I wonder how RMS feels about
applying the GPL to the GPL? That is, people can make all the
modifications they like as long as new people can make modifications to
it? Given that RMS isn't too happy with the proliferation of licenses,
I'd bet he'd cringe at the idea of a GPL'd GPL. :-)
Still the RPL *could* be in copyright violation if they lifted text
directly out of the GPL and placed it into the RPL. But it would be the
height of hypocrasy on the part of FSF and RMS if they had a problem
with this.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde