Re: [boost] Accurate, pauseless & deterministic GC for C++

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-29 10:15:07

Scott McMurray wrote:
> 
> On 29/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin Schulz wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want to release your code a open source but reserve commercial
> > > > uses to your own, you may choose the GPL
> > >
> > > The GPL perfectly allows commercial use. It's just that it may not be
> >
> > Not so according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Easterbrook
> > ("Frank Hoover Easterbrook (born 1948) is Chief Judge of the United
> > States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He has been Chief Judge
> > since November 2006, and has been a judge on the court since 1985.
> > Easterbrook is noted for his use of economic analysis of law, his
> > legalist approach to judicial interpretation, for his clear writing
> > style, and for being one of the most prolific judges of his generation.
> > Easterbrook is one of the most prolific and most cited appellate judges
> > in America."):
> >
> > http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf
> >
> > "Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the
> > Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the
> > creation of derivative works--and the license prohibits charging for the
> > derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and
> > only if they come under the same license terms as the original work.
> > Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision:
> > neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved
> > version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge.
> > Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to
> > collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any
> > attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even
> > if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation
> > calls the result ``copyleft.''"
> >
> 
> That's a rather interesting quotation, given that the GPL itself
> contains the following sentence: "You may charge a fee for the
> physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html

"“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work
is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the
work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either
directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies”
includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the
work is first fixed."

Easterbrook (06-2454_008.pdf): "Red Hat, Inc., sells media (such as
DVDs), manuals, and support for the installation and maintenance of
Linux. The GPL covers only the software; people are free to charge for
the physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it
work. Paper manuals, and the time of knowledgeable people who service
and support an installation, thus are the most expensive part of using
Linux."

:-)

regards,
alexander.