comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:2135   
   From: "A.D. Fundum"    
      
    > The code is covered by copyright.   
      
   Maybe. But there was a remark about something being GPL'ed. GPL is    
   bogus, (c) isn't.   
      
    > The GPL creates a right to make copies that otherwise   
    > would be prohibtted.   
      
   No, it doesn't.   
      
   Of course you already understand the GPL doesn't create a right if the   
   GPL isn't valid, and something that isn't valid (or doesn't exist, as    
   such) also cannot change a prohibbitation (sp?) status. What you're    
   saying is essentially that all distributed software, based on another    
   version that's "just" (c), is illegal. Because that makes no sense at    
   all, for one, the GPL is bogus.   
      
   BTW, a clear situation is like a newsgroup article with a free    
   LESSONS.ZIP, containing 2 text files:   
      
   1: /* RexxLesson1.CMD */;SAY "(c) Johann 2011"   
      
   2: Thise gelicenzierte software creatore avec NOTEPAD.EXE obligaat    
   additium cette file   
      
   I think the first file includes a near-perfect (c) claim, not to be    
   missed. File #2 appears not te be required, I don't understand it, I    
   may (remove and) ignore it. What's left is just the first file.    
   There's nothing allowed nor denied by the second file. As if it never    
   existed, isn't it? Of course file #1 still is (c), an unchanged    
   condition. You can do whatever you want with it, as long as it's    
   compliant with the (c)-related laws and rules. I hope everybody    
   noticed the lack of file #2 didn't change that at all. And it wouldn't   
   help if file #2 stated that it has to be mentioned casu quo has to    
   occur in file #1   
      
    > If the GPL is invalid in specific countries then there   
    > is no right in those countries to make copies other   
    > than those covered by fair use.   
      
   Wrong. First of all we'ld create a shorter list by mentioning    
   countries where the GPL is valid. I.e. where English is an (official)    
   language. Next, "fair use" is unclear to me, because it appereantly    
   isn't the same as "legal use". The GPL doesn't add anything, it's    
   irrelevant. And if it was relevant, there are (thank goodness) no    
   country checks required, and so on. So the only remaining thing indeed   
   is the (c) you mentioned too. Write a smart IFS (i.e. embedding some    
   level of your intellectual property), which clearly is free, claim its   
   (c), and publish its source too. Then you've "donated it to the public   
   domain", and about the only thing required for using (parts of) its    
   unique source is to mention your original (c).   
      
   But this was about something being GPL'ed, which is 100.0% bogus.    
   Let's assume you think the GPL applies to you. You download Johann's    
   free (c) IFS.ZIP, including a GPL-related  file called LICENSE. Then    
   you'ld have to respect the GPL, because you think the GPL  applies to    
   you. It'll probably tell you that you always must include this file    
   LICENCE, and so on. If this GPL doesn't apply to me, which obviously    
   is the case, I can download the same  package, _remove_ the unneeded    
   file LICENSE, and re-distribute the whole package without GPL. As long   
   as this GPL isn't clearly "(c) Johann", and required by his IFS    
   product. It isn't. The limit isn't determined by what is fair, the    
   limit is determined by the (c). The GPL doesn't add anything to that.    
   I fear you'ld be living is a rather strange country if the use of my    
   re-distributed package is restricted because some third-party file    
   called LICENSE is missing. Is there e.g. a law or rule stating that    
   you, as a private person, are required to look for such a file? And if   
   it's missing you should investigate where it is? And during this    
   investigation, the use of the package in queston is assumed to be    
   illegal until there's evidence it's legal?   
      
   There are also reversed laws, but that's as irrelevant as a GPL. E.g.    
   being allowed to upload payware to Hobbes, but bot being allowed to    
   download payware from Hobbes. As opposed to not being allowed to    
   upload payware to Hobbes, but being allowed to download payware from    
   Hobbes. Just a possible way to avoid licenses (assuming certain    
   conditions), if those weren't bogus.    
      
   I don't understand your last remark, perhaps confirming the fact that    
   English isn't an official language for me... ;-)   
      
   As I stated earlier, this third-party GPL is as relevant as an    
   impressive pile of Bills. I have nothing to do with some abroad    
   foundation, speaking to me in some foreign language. Nevertheless one    
   _may_ respect it. Unlike (c), one _must_ respect it.   
      
      
   --   
      
   --- Internet Rex 2.31   
    * Origin: News-Service.com (1:261/20.999)