[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license

- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:18:30 PST
- From:
- Reply-To:

    >
    >>It would seem to me that since the MOO code is a derivitive work based
    >>on a previous work by Stephen White, aka ghond, that if he were to GPL
    >>the original work, then that would solve the whole problem for once
    >>and for all: Xerox would either have to make MOO fall under the terms
    >>of the GPL, or not distribute MOO.  But it is too late for them to not
    >>distribute MOO, since that has already been done.
    >
    >Uh, sorry, but there are several misunderstandings of the law in here.
    >Although Mr. White can release his own work into the public domain, that
    >has no effect on the copyrightable modifications and extensions added by
    >Pavel Curtis (a Xerox employee).  Of course, it'd clear up some ambiguity
    >if he *did* make a public statement to that effect, but then again, I
    >suggest that perhaps he shouldn't, for some, uh, interesting reasons.

    Okay, let me see... here's some GPL stuff:

    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
    thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
    modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
    you also meet all of these conditions:

      a. You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
    that you changed the files and the date of any change.

      b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
    or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
    be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
    of this License.

    [...]

    These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If identifiable
    sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
    considered reasonably independant and separate works in themselves, then
    this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
    distribute them as separate works.  But when you distribute the same
    sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
    distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
    permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
    each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

    Okay, so let's see.  If LambdaMOO could run perfectly well without White's
    core section, it does not need to be licensed along with White's code as
    long as the sections are properly separated.

    Yes, Pavel did carry out the part marked A above.  The changes are written
    out on the bottom of each file.

    Even though Pavel wrote a large section of the code, that code, as long as
    it still contains White's section, has to be under the GPL assuming White
    were to declare it as such.

    So I say yes, you can.

    --
    - Wisq

Follow-Ups:

- Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license

- From: Alex Stewart <riche@crl.com>

- Prev: Ansi Code
- Next: Re: anyone ever gotten Xerox to clarify the MOO license
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index