Re: z8530drv at last...

[Joerg Reuter DL1BKE <DL1BKE@melaten.ihf.rwth-aachen.de>]

: You can't do that. The GPL doesn't permit that sort of additional restriction.
: If you want to try and achieve that effect put the user programs not the driver
: under an amateur only license. You can't stop people going and writing new
: tools though.
:
: The whole point of the GPL is to avoid rewriting and restrictions that stop
: sharing. Everyone contributing to Linux let you share their work on the
: condition all could share anything you contributed to it. This has gone on
: far too long with scc 1.4 etc. Please either correct the copyright or can
: Brian remove the offending material from the ucsd ftp archive. If you don't
: want to contribute back to a GPL'd project then fine - but don't build on
: GPL'd material and seek to ignore the copyright  - that is no different from
: stealing commercial software.
:
: Alan
:

Oh, no, not AGAIN!!! Should we discuss technical problems here or play
spare-time lawyers? There are several reasons for that notice:

1. Although it is a quite total rewrite, the driver still MAY touch
   somebody's copyrights (through its structure). The problem is
   that the original SCC driver is copyrighted by Rob and won't get
   the GPL state even if Phil changes the NOS package rights to
   GPL... That is, as far as I understood him, Rob's point of view.

2. My notice should have following effects:

   - non-HAMs should at least ask before they use the driver (just
     want to know what's going on)

   - If a non-HAM uses the code he uses it without ANY warranty and
     can't claim to get any reward for damages. (The
     explicit exclusion of any warranty is usesless here in Europe.
     Judges won't accept it)

3.  I don't wat citicen band user fooling around with MY work.

The problem of the GPL is that you can read almost everything out of
it. To discuss this matter would take a lawyer knowing the copyright
regulations of every land... I don't see a problem to limit the
GPL to ham radio, it may not been Linus' intention (although he
himself uses a modified GPL). It's my code, I decide what to do
with it, and GPL does not stand against it (compare to the commercial
derivates of gnuscript/ghostview). On the other hand, I don't
care what somebody in fact does with the code. If he does something
against the licence, I can't prevent it and I won't do anything
against it. (the difference between de jure and de facto)

Okay, to cool the things down: If nobody else claims copyrights
on parts of the driver (Rob PE1CHL, I think you are reading this,
what's your opinion?) until, say January the 31th, it goes completely
to the GNU GPL. I will send a new copyright notice to the group and
put it on ftp.UCSD.EDU.

NB: One consequence of the whole story could be that that I stop
    working on the driver. I'm not willing to waste more of my spare
    time with endless and useless copyright discussions. HELL, you
    get that stuff FOR FREE!

--
Joerg Reuter        Internet: dl1bke@melaten.ihf.rwth-aachen.de
                    ampr-net: dl1bke@db0pra
                    ax25    : DL1BKE @ DK0MWX.DEU.EU