Slashdot Mirror
GPL To Be Tested In Court?
KevinReichard to plug the interview on his site with Eben Moglen. "The general counsel to the Free Software Foundation tells us that the GPL may be tested as early as this summer, as the FSF debates whether to sue a major software house over violations to the GPL. The lawsuit, if it takes place, would be the first major test of the GPL in court. Obviously the legal status of the GPL is a prime issue to the Open Source and Free Software communities. "
It may be legal to break the GPL, but it's gonna raise quite a ruckus, seeing how 'hot' linux is these days...
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
- we didn't write it;
- we didn't pay for it;
- we want to use it in our own commercial products;
- we know the author doesn't want us to use it;
- but the author messed up by using the GPL which (for an obscure reason most people won't understand) we don't believe it's enforceable.
It's not a pleasant line to have to take, assuming the company has intellectual property of its own. The changes of looking, very publicly, like a hypocrite are quite high...
I believe you're entirely correct here. If you want to distribute modified/unmodified/derivitive/whatever GPL'd code, you must agree to the license, simply because nothing else grants you the right to distribute the code - it's a copyright issue. If you disregard the GPL, you can't distribute anything, because normal copyright still applies: it's somebody else's work.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
If UCITA can enforce all those crappy agreements that big software makers force on us, why can we not use that same LAW to protect GPL'd software.
Maybe they could. IANAL but maybe it's possible. If it were me calling the shots though I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't use a horrible law to protect even my own interests. It would be too much like PETA's recent idiocy, where they sue somebody for putting up a peta site that mocks them, while at the same time mocking mcdonalds with a similar site. To use the law to help us, and then to turn around and attack it (as I hope people will continue to do) is kinda low.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
. I don't think this is even going to need to go to court. No matter how you read the GPL, it clearly states that if you used a GPL'ed program, "in part or in whole", then any and all derivitives are GPL'ed. Whichever company decided that they made to much money to pay attention to copyright laws needs to go back and Read The * Manual (ok so its a licence agreement, but thats kinda a manual of exceptable uses of the covered works).
Okay, I wasn't using my brain. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. (Those guys must have some really boring dreams ... mixed in with some really nasty ones.)
Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
You are absolutely correct but you know what ?
It is social strugle for them and has nothing to do with freedom. Or rather, it has everything to do with freedom as understood by RMS and we know what happens when people start f***g around with meaning of the word freedom.
There are a few differences between OSS programmers and Lars that you totally ignore.
1) OSS programmers want their code to be distriubed and useful.
2) Lars wants money.
That said, I would still copy Lars' music if I thought it was any good (which I don't) but didn't plan on buying the CD (which I don't). The rampant copying of MP3's on the net has been very useful to me and a particular record company... I'm a huge fan of Underworld, but their music isn't all that popular over here in America. I first heard their music from MP3s that I downloaded, and now I own 7 Underworld CDs.
The point was that the original poster bashed
the GPL on a moral basis, which he has no
right to.
It is the original authors choice of license,
which others must respect.
However.. this doesn't mean that I'm saying that
the GPL is enforceable.
I'm arguing the morals behind the license, not
the legality.
Personally I feel it would be a tragedy if
all GPL-software suddenly became public domain,
even though I think that if the GPL doesn't hold
up, it would be illegal to distribute GPL-software at all.
But IANAL, so I won't argue about the legal side,
only the intention.
But in case 2, what does the software company gain? The FSF can just promptly turn around and sue them for a few million dollars on copyright violations and throw the case to the feds and get the company execs in jail for it too. Copyright violation is a federal crime, not some piddly lawsuit.
As the GPL states, the code _is_ copyrighted and nothing but the GPL allows redistribution of the code in question.
So basicly the GPL should be even stronger than any shrinkwrap liccens.
Shrinkwrap takes away the right to use software and grants it back IF you agree to certen terms.
GPL allows you to use the software no matter what. It takes away no rights normaly automatic for commertal software that is downloaded or paid for.
Becouse GPL takes nothing away it should be stronger.
On a side note. This may be why the GPL has gone unchallanged for so long. Revoking the GPL may win you nothing as this reverts the software to the status of "expressed writen permition" the GPL basicly just waves that. Eliminate the GPL and then your rights to distribute the software evaperate.
I don't actually exist.
Yes, but the question is whether or not the code can be 'UN-GPLed'.
Nobody disputes the author's right to redistribution under whatever terms he wants, as often as he wants.... but he cannot revoke his initial GPL on his code.
Of course, he can simply take it off his project website.. though nothing would prevent anyone with GPL'd versions from continuing.
Just an observation: wasn't the whole idea of the formulation of the GPL to mimic the commercial shrink-wrap license?
That would be the root of the argument made by an Anonymous Coward earlier in this thread, that the collapse of the GPL in its current form would weaken all shrinkwrap agreements.
I would be interested in hearing what the Software and Information Industry Association (formerly the Software Publishers Association) has to say on the issue. (You can look, but when I posted this nothing was there on the subject.) Then there is the Association of Shareware Professionals who also haven't said a word.
Why bring up the ASP? I suspect that if the GPL falls, so will the shareware license agreements, and pretty much for the same reasons: privity. Remember, shareware is meant to be distributed by the buying customer to other third parties.
Really!?! Though I know plenty of people who use Napster, I don't know even one who uses it legally in the sense that they aren't doing anything illegal with it (as opposed to the sense that, since it's free, merely using it is legal).
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
However if you can download and make your own cd in less than an hour, why drive to the store to buy it?
I don't see what you mean here. If you can download and make a CD in less than an hour, they could obviously do the same for the same price. All the creative effort was by other people writing the code.
They can (and do) still charge for technical support. They can do that even without supplying a physical medium.
Yes, UCITA. :)
--
/me clicks No Score +1 Bonus
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
It could for this reason. If I give you something under the terms of a licence that is declared null and void, then you get to keep it. Period. I cannot 'take it back' becouse the licence was invalid. Now part of what I gave you was the source.
While this doesn't remove the actual rights from the author, it does invalidate some of them for that particular licence.
Basically, who the hell knows what'll happen..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
"1) If Microsoft fucks us all by jacking our code, they're being evil.
2. If you fuck Lars by jacking his work, you're still cool, "cuz data wants to be free.
In short, you suck, and your argument is incoherant."
One of your 3 points is that I "suck" and you call MY argument incoherent?
Anyway, your #1 is misstated. How about these:
1) If Microsoft (ab)uses existing law to curtail freedoms, they're being evil.
2) If I break those same (ab)used laws in some other activity (say, "stealing from" Lars), I'm fighting evil.
Now, you may not agree with these positions. But at least you can see they aren't contradictory, can't you?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
No, it's not OK to send Lars' music around the 'Net - but it's OK for Napster to facilitate it. Napster's not the one trading Metallica MP3s, Napster's users are - and without Napster's (official) knowledge or approval. Napster's copyright policy is here.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I know quite a few people who thing GPL is dangerous thing. I doubt they would rejoyce. ...
So there is now "we" here
"OK, copying music is wrong ..."
This society is a sad one when it is not allowed to share music and everyone is holding on to their own stuff in fear of losing it. When was the last time you helped someone without thinking about any rewards for doing so?
What is it that makes us a strong, happy and resistant community? Certainly not when everything and everyone comes for a price. There's just too much resistance and friction in the economic model, it can't possibly scale down to everything we do. (When was the last time you needed a program your company refused to buy, or how much trouble did you have to go through in order to get it? How many forms did you sign? How much did you have to research and contemplate in order tell your boss you really needed this, and not some other program.)
Sad.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Nobody disputes the author's right to redistribution under whatever terms he wants, as often as he wants.... but he cannot revoke his initial GPL on his code.
No, he cannot revoke the original GPL.
He can, however, incorporate in into a private codebase without any concerns, particularly without infecting the rest of the codebase.
--Dan
When the thread goes to press, I shall have to have the editor s/justify Napster/justify (music piracy through) Napster/
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The key here is that nothing but the GPL grants me the right to distribute a derivative work. If the original code was written by someone else and released under the GPL, that GPL is the only reason I can release a derivative work at all - otherwise, according to standard copyright, I couldn't do that. If I want to distribute it, I have to accept the license. If I don't like the license, I can find another way to do what I want.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You talk about there being a problem with software being available to anyone who wants it, anywhere, for any purpose.
Public domain is the most free of all the licenses. No encumberment at all.
I actually think that's a good thing. The GPL likes to inject political ideas into data. Public domain says 'I made this, you can use it to help yourself' no matter who you are, commercial or non.
IMO, the GPL is slightly less `real' than most other shrink-wrap licenses (and that's really what the GPL is, in most cases. Of course, the GPL only goes into effect when you use or modify the software, not just when you open the `box'..). You (usually) don't click any `accept' button before installing the software. Certainly, the GPL comes with your software, but you usually don't get prompted to accept or reject it.
Where this gets interesting is in the area of DVDs. The movie industry expects consumers to use licensed players to play those movies. However, there is no contract of any sort with the consumer stating that they are required to do so. So, if the worst happens, and the GPL is struck down, we at least know that the DVD industry is way out of line by trying to enforce invisible contracts..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA
Exactly. And they could drop a note to the nice federal guys that this nasty company is making a buisness out of violating our copyright and making money on our intellectual property. Copyright violations are (jailtime) frowned upon, systematic for-profit violations are (serious jailtime) really frowned upon.
From The FSF's page.
To copyleft a program, first we copyright it; then we add distribution terms
The GPL is the copyright.
No, the GPL is the distribution terms. It's the General Public License, not the General Public Copyright. If the GPL is found to be legally invalid, the copyright remains.
Any guesses on who it is?
/ZL
And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now.
This seems to sum up the intellectual defense of every would-be Napster defender.
If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
Then we could just en-masse trade any software we like Napster style and then just claim that it's too late to do anything about it. There's nothing really wrong with that since information wants to be free. While you're at it come download my extensive collection of OCR scanned books. Remember, there's nothing wrong since it's just information.
You see, music copyrights are about money and control. The GPL is about neither of these.
This has got to be the most ignorant statement I've heard all day. It's still early, though.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Revocation of the GPL does not invalidate the copyright. Just means the license to distribute is not valid. At that point, FSF could temporarily restrict all distribution of its copyrighted work until a new, more secure license can be established.
Does anyone here honestly think the GPL won't stand up in court, though???
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
If this goes to court and GPL is upheld watch commecial world specifically banning all GPL software in the corporate world. I bet some of them will even specificly prohibit running GPL binaries let alone looking at the source code ...
While I am a fan of the GPL over BSD, even I have to admit that BSD culture created the internet.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
There is no license. Music is covered very nicely under copyright law: you can use and copy it but you can't distribute copies you make; you can sell the original copy; you can use it in your own work as long as it's fairly original; playing it to a massive audience (e.g. on the radio or at a stadium or some such) is going a bit too far, but playing it for friends in your living room is a-ok.
Where the hell do you think there's a license related in any way to generic audio CDs? I'd love to know.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
First Monday had an excellent article by Eben Moglen, FSF's general counsel who was interviewed in the Linux Planet article mentioned above. It's called " Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright". It's written a bit in lawyerese, but it's reassuring to see the guy responsible for litigating all this actually has a clue. It discusses why the some of the arguments for and against IP are invalid -- even describing adherents as "IPdroids" and "Econodwarfs" ;) A quote from the article:
Section 2(b) of the GPL is sometimes called "restrictive," but its intention is liberating. It creates a commons, to which anyone may add but from which no one may subtract. Because of 2(b), each contributor to a GPL'd project is assured that she, and all other users, will be able to run, modify and redistribute the program indefinitely, that source code will always be available, and that, unlike commercial software, its longevity cannot be limited by the contingencies of the marketplace or the decisions of future developers. This "inheritance" of the GPL has sometimes been criticized as an example of the free software movement's anti-commercial bias. Nothing could be further from the truth. The effect of 2(b) is to make commercial distributors of free software better competitors against proprietary software businesses.
He then goes on to quote the Halloween memo! Hilarious.
We want endless gardens of data, where the bits can flower, flourish and reproduce. -- Andy Mueller-Maguhn
The article doesn't seem to reveal the identity of the "major software house" but it's probably good to have a test case.
Let's not assume that the "major software house" is our enemy. (I can see you didn't) It is not unheard of for the ACLU, for example, to deliberately bring a 'friendly test case' with the cooperation of both plaintiff and defendant when it wants to establish a point of law or strike down an unconstitutional law.
This is often necessary because the ACLU does not have 'standing' (direct involvement) and the courts are set up to administer justice in actual cases, not to pontificate on philosophical issues.
However, that does not mean that the case will not be vigorously argued by both sides. A test case is of little use if it doesn't
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Maybe we should start a fund to finance such lawsuites. I think it will help uphold the GPL, and smaller number of companies will start thinking about cheating GPL
Just to nitpick, public domain isn't a license, it's the absense of copyright.
As for the horse, I prefer women, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
...which leads to the question, if all the Open licenses are found to be invalid under US law, how big a disaster is that? Can the Free/OS Software community limp along with all code in the Dreaded Public Domain, or do we pack up and go home?
The quote he provides is regarding proper proceedure; the Supreme Court must be notified if information comes up regarding the jursdiction of the case. A "Writ of Certiorari" is a request for a hearing by the Supreme Court of a case. Not at all relevent to the GPL/LGPL licensing issue at hand.
I stick by my observation.
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
Under copyright law, by default you can NOT redistribute a copyrighted piece of information. And all information is copyrighted for the first hundred years or so after it is created. Those little bloopers on videotapes are totally unnecessary (except possibly that they remove the defense through ignorance): you have no rights to redistribute BY DEFAULT.
However, you can redistribute a copyrighted piece of information if you have a license to do so. The GPL gives you a license to do this. If the GPL is ruled invalid (which I regard as highly improbable) then the situation reverts to normal: that is, no redistribution allowed.
The beauty of the GPL is that, unlike most licenses, it places no restrictions on what you can do except redistribute. And this is where copyright law is most clearly on the side of the GPL. In fact, redistribution is the only thing really covered under copyright law. Standard software licenses try to use copyright's restriction on redistribution to force a lot of other things down your throat (e.g. no reverse engineering) -- as such, they might be challenged on the grounds that they are unreasonable. But the core principle of copyright law is that an author has the right to restrict distribution of his work. As such, I just can't see a successful challenge to the core of the GPL.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
People giving out GPL binaries without the source are violating the General Public Licence, and, if they manage to knock the GPL down, they'll have no license at all to distribute it, so if they continue to do so, they will be violating copyright law at that point.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How many of us really are lawyers? I mean, wouldn't it make a little more sense if the lawyers out there would just preface their comments with IAAL? Of course, IANAEOPDTAL (I Am Not An Expert On People Declaring Themselves As Lawyers), but it makes sense to me.
My other
While the GPL requires it to remain open and be provided with source. You can charge to distribute it on physical media(CD, DVD, floppy, etc), but it must be available for download.
Aside from the downloading part, this is correct. One example of a company that is affected by this restriction is Apple: they'd love to include gnutar as part of Mac OS X, but if it's released as part of the operating system (as opposed to just being bundled as an extra utility), they'd have to release the whole OS as GPL, which they don't want to do. So, Apple Legal says no GNU code in the main OS, because of the GPL.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Basically, if you buy software, it's yours. Not the copyright, but as long as you don't distribute copies you make (selling what you bought is totally fine) you're ok. Unfortunately it can be difficult to *use* it without inadvertently ending up with a much crappier license. But if you can get around it, you're not bound by it IMHO. Of course, IANAL.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
GPL culture created Internet ?
Are you on crack ?
> To use the law to help us, and then to turn around > and attack it (as I hope people will continue to > do)is kinda low."
:)
I see what yer saying, but as a minority group (atleast in the courts eyes), we need to use every tool/law available to us. Sure we can continue to fight bad laws like UCITA and DMCA. But we can also use them to our advantage, play dirty like the rest of the corperate world, thats why the open source community as a whole keeps taking one step forward, 2 steps back, we try to play fair, while corperations play dirty. And as much as I hate to admit it, you don't get anywhere by playing by the rules when fighting an opponent who cheats.
But, if the open source community decided to use the UCITA or DMCA laws as a reason to win the court case, would that set a bad precedent for when we turn around and try to fight the laws in question, and be stabbing ourselves in the back.
As always, I am not a lawyer, and my oppinions are mine and not that of my employer who has some patent issues that I disagree with as it is
Jason
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
One of the best ways to deal with bad laws is to use them for your own advantage, and make the courts choose. My line of thinking had been on something like freenet or other "anonymous" file sharing utilities. Encrypt the data, copyright the method of encryption. Include as part of the EULA for the software that any attempt to gather information about users for copyright purposes, any attempt to discern someone's identity, or something else dangerous to the project is a violation of the EULA and grounds for termination of the license. They either have to use the software and obey the EULA, or reverse engineer or get around the encryption, which, thanks to the DMCA, is a violation of the copyright and illegal.
I may have some of the details wrong, but the idea is to use the laws against them, which they either have to suck up and take, or get repealed so they can't use them either.
That or support HavenCO i guess.
-Tannin Kal
Shouldn't the main goal here be to make the unnamed software house adhere to the GPL, rather than just suing somebody solely for the sake of testing the GPL in court?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
This literally "does not follow" from anything. It is irrelevant even if true.
I don't think you know what a non sequitur is, nor how to spell it.
My "argument" was not ad hominem because it's not an argument.
Your "argument" was that 1. The law shouldn't be respected because it can't protect against illegal use of information, and 2. The law regarding the GPL should be respected by others apparently since it supports your beliefs.
This is not only ad hominem, but could be credibly described as hypocritical by some people.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I think I speak for all of us when I say 'Can I have some of what you're smoking?'
You know what I hate about the Disney channel? It makes me pay for watching movies I created, like the Little Mermaid, and Snow White...
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't. But most people here seem to expect way more.
3) GPL is NOT upheld. Then what? Does RMS have a contingency plan?
This would probably result in the FSF claiming breach of copyright, and suing based on that. This would probably be a totally different case though.
The notion of privity in this article is a curious one. If the GPL's infectious nature is found untenable under the argument concerning lack of privity, what effect does this have on other software licenses? Does this mean that if I find an open box of Win2K or Office2K, I am free to read the CD and load DLLs and other components into my product as long as I wasn't privy to the original purchaser's agreement to the shrinkwrap EULA or install the software and agree to the installer EULA? Maybe a copy of Visual Cafe from a used software store and a developer make a better example.
Woah. Seems to me that there are a lot of closed software interests that would prefer not to face such an argument, even if it ultimately doesn't hold up.
my $0.02
Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
"On the other hand, becoming angry because a law is being broken..."
But, you see, that's not why I'm angry. I'm angry because someone is trying to make free software non-free. Luckily I'm "working within the system" and I can zap them with their own stupid laws.
"This seems to sum up the intellectual defense of every would-be Napster defender."
What is this? An argument or a compliment?
"While you're at it come download my extensive collection of OCR scanned books. Remember, there's nothing wrong since it's just information."
What's the URL?
You seem to think are leading me down a slippery slope to total chaos. From my point of view you're just repeating the obvious.
"This has got to be the most ignorant statement I've heard all day. It's still early, though."
Good, then you'll still have some energy to come up with some actual rebuttals rather than non-sequitors and ad hominems.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I don't recall seeing anything about that on my usual news channels, and it warrants a story. And other news readers have offered the exact same functionality for years. Over 5 years ago, a friend gave me a perl script that snarfed uuencoded files off of Usenet (Excellent for snarfing that live goat porn.) Will the RIAA sue Tom Christensen next, because perl can be used to decode Usenet binaries?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Didn't anyone else notice "This program is published under GPL version 2, or any newer version"? Perhaps this is not the right way to spell it out, but simply referring the license to the newewst current GPL may resolve the problem once the newest GPL resolves its problems, wouldn't it?
A simple revision that would address these concerns is having the license include the provision that rights to all code issued under the GPL are assigned to the FSF.
Are you trying to write the obituary for the GPL? There are already enough programmers out there who won't work on GNU projects because of the requirement to assign copyright to the FSF, do you really want to burden the GPL itself with that anchor?
If you have a piece of code with no license attached to it, you can do whatever you want with it.
Not at all. The 1980 Software Copyright Act specifically says what you can and cannot do with copyrighted software, license or no. Among the things you cannot do are distribute copies or derivative works without a license.
Steven E. Ehrbar
If you mean FSF zealots then say it so and don't create illusion that entire internet community gives a damn about GPL. I don't and obviously BSD folks niether. .. how the hell one can steal something that is supposedly completely free ( as in freedom )?
BTW
If it is possible then obviously it is NOT free and somebody is playing with the word "freedom" here.You can't have it both ways !
Are you on crack ?
Yeah, everyone knows it was Al Gore.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The 'Internet Death Penalty' smacks of illegal Racketeering.
It's only racketeering if what you are proposing to do is illegal. To voluntarily boycott is perfectly legal. This tactic has been used numerous times against ISPs that for failures of ommission -- to wit failing to take vigorous steps against spammers.
Several times ISPS such as UUNET have engaged in some legal chest thumping, only to crawl back with their tail between their legs once the IDP deadline rolled up.
I see Geeks all over the net picketing outside the head offices of backbone providers, because they've been
thrown off for being anarchistic disruptors.
That would be kind of like firing all the auto mechanics because they tend to get greasy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Nope, no go. The GPL specifically states that you have to distribute the source in machine readable form. Further the source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, also explicitly stated in the GPL. Good luck trying to convince a court that the preferred form of making modifications to a C program is on paper in Swahili.
The GPL is, like, you know, written by some rather intelligent and jaded individuals.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The difference with Ghostscript is that there the author explicitly makes it a condition of accepting patches into the main tree that the patches' authors must sign over the right to use those patches in the closed-source commercial version, an if the patches' authors wanted the patch to only go into a fork of the gpled version, then there's nothing Alladin could do about it. This is not an example of a general doctrine, and others who don't negotiate for such permission cannot unilaterally and retroactively claim it.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
O yeah it is pain .. so is going to work every morning. What's your solution for that ? .. and a house and ,hell, whatever they want.
Why should we share music and not, say cars ?
Why not introduce law stating that everybody has to have a car
If stuff has no value (free) people have no incentive to produce it. Simple like that. Look at the communism. People did not own stuff so they didn't give a fuck about it.
O yeah it is pain .. so is going to work every morning. What's your solution for that ? .. and a house and ,hell, whatever they want.
Why should we share music and not, say cars ?
Why not introduce law stating that everybody has to have a car
If stuff has no value (free) people have no incentive to produce it. Simple like that. Look at the communism. People did not own stuff so they didn't give a fuck about it.
"I find it amusing that many of the same people who try to justify Napster get all up in arms over the idea that the GPL might not get held up."
Yes, you are very clever (and repetitive, I've seen this post a number of times). Now let's apply some logic.
1) Why do I "justify Napster"? Because I believe that data should be free. And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now. If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
2) Why do I "get all up in arms over the idea that the GPL might not get held up"? Because I believe that data should be free. And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now. If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
Hey! Whaddya know, those reasons are identical. So I'm not hypocritical. How's that possible?
Because the only reason I try to enforce the GPL is to obtain my stated goals of software freedom. Currently the only way to do this is via licensing. But if licensing were to go away, I would find another way (or the project would become moot).
You see, music copyrights are about money and control. The GPL is about neither of these.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Loading the software into RAM is copying and not fair use
Incorrect. The 1980 Software Copyright Act specifically gives you that right.
Steven E. Ehrbar
No, you're wrong. Authors in general are afforded the right to maintain copyright over their material, but there is no law saying they must (any publisher who tries otherwise is going to take some serious shit from the writer's guild, though). Programmers, on the other hand, are typically not. A programmer for Microsoft cannot move her own code elsewhere, because MSFT has the copyright and not her. Musicians also are not. Chuck D cannot put his own music on his web site in MP3. His record company -- not him -- holds the copyright, and doing so is infringing on their copyright.
It is a shame that FSF needs funding ... Acording to ERS GNU and GPL can be just as profitable as your typical commercial enterprise. If the very people who invented GPL concept seem to have a problem with funding how the hell ERS expects others to follow this obviously utopian idea ?
There is no problem updating the GPL to fix loopholes, because almost all GPL'ed code is specifically licensed under 'Version X or later'.
The only minor problem with that is (at least around here) clasues that allow one party to change the contract (which is basically what a license is) without notifying the other party is illegal (Competition Act or Ontario, 1985. IANAL, but I did take Law in High School :) ).
So, the words "or later" aren't going to fly around here, AFAICT. Neither are most M$ EULAs, assuming a challenge ever happens. (Of course, then the law will be changed by US lobbyists, but hey, that's democracy for you </sarcasm>)
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Hey, can't I just, say, set up some shady Fly-By-Night-Software, make some trivial program violating the GPL (ON PURPOSE) then have the FSF sue me. Being amicable to the FSF, I'll hire some dumb clueless lawyer and lose the suit. But I suppose that is illegal :o
* SuperMake, closed derivate of Gnu Make, now released! Get your copy for only 5 bucks! *
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ahem. Signing your work as a programmer to the GPL does not reduce your rights to that work, whereas signing your work as a programmer to your company DOES.
What's key, though, is if you GPL'd and released your code(legally) first, and then later your company or some company you started working for wanted to integrate your code in a manner that caused even you to lose your rights over the code, that'd actually be doable. You can renounce your claim over your own code if you like--the GPL doesn't make you, though.
However, even if you have no rights over your code, everyone else who you GPL'd that code to does.
This isn't too complex of a concept, I don't think?
--Dan
Also, if they lose the case based on the GPL, could the FSF not sue again over copyright infringment.
If the distribution license is held invalid, wouldn't the FSF then have to sue EVERY distributor of GPL'd software to be non-discriminatory?
And then if the FSF wins the copyright suit, the damage award would be millions of copies times zero dollars in lost profits (since copy #1 was given away). Hmmm, doesn't seem to be that bad for the copyright violator. Maybe the FSF should only sell GPL'd software for several millon dollars a copy so that they'd have some damages worth suing over...
IANAL, etc.
You realize that "Microsoft Linux" could never exist though, since as soon as both words are written onto the CD, it will annihilate itself with the matter-antimatter collision, destroying everything around it for a good couple of miles in the process.
-Joe
Simple. The GPL Adds to your normal rights by giving you the option to do certain things with the source code, whereas the other agreement seeks to limit the rights you might reasonably expect to have when you buy something.
The word 'option' is important because if you don't like the GPL, you can decide not to exercise your options under the GPL, you just get the software under the law's 'default copyright settings'- ie no rights to make derivative works, etc.
- Andy R.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I personally have seen at least one post where it was explicitly said that copyright was immoral because it restricted free speech, but GPL should be upheld as a matter of human rghts.
Personally, I don't buy your claim that they are unrelated. Either you believe that people have the right to some say on what is done with their intellectual work (copyright, GPL, whatever) or you don't and people can do whatever they want, closed source, open source, free, paid, whatever with your work if you release it to even one other person. Personally, I support intellectual property rights, but if you don't, expect to hack and be hacked, don't claim that the limits you want to put on your work are moral, but someone else's aren't.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I'm aware of the LGPL. But that doesn't answer my question: How is linking to dynamic libraries inside of the GPL's self-declared scope?
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Insurance companies and banks have more or less perfected this strategy: go after someone who can't possibly win so that you establish legal precedent. Judges are hesitant to overturn an existing precedent. It is this strategy which has established the lopsided world in which we live, in which the effect of the law is slanted toward those who have money. While the law is meant to be fair; the reality of "money equals power" means that most of the time the law rules in favor of the wealthy.
An example can illustrate how lopsided things are: when was the last time that you heard of an employee writing an employment contract and getting a company to sign it? If both employees and employers were in equal bargaining positions half of all employment contracts would be written by the employees. But in fact, all of the employment contracts of which I am aware are dictated by the employers and are non negotiable; "Sign this or don't work". Such lopsided conditions exist because being in the right in a court of law hardly matters; what counts is who wins and who loses - why they lose doesn't matter.
Lawyers are people who simply don't understand right and wrong: that is why everything has to be written down for them.
If we are out to establish a legal precedent for the GPL the best strategy is crush a cockroach, not punch an elephant.
If GPL doesn't stand up in court, shouldn't we find this out sooner rather than later?
Everything in this post is false.
There is no problem updating the GPL to fix loopholes, because almost all GPL'ed code is specifically licensed under 'Version X or later'...
... this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
This is correct in substance (good work!), but I feel I should clarify the details, because they are not all good. First let's look at the relevant section of the license:
8.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Firstly, an 'unspecified' GPL opens up the software to the loopholes in all versions of GPL. Why was this done? Probably as a protection against one or more versions being struck down or interpreted to limit 'openness'. It is not entirely clear whether a free license may be revoked (invalidated for an individual product) by the author, since 'valuable consideration' (value recieved for value granted) is not specified, aside fraom a general intent of helping Free Software. Under general contract law, a contract with no valuable consideration may be later voided at the choice of the granting party - or sometimes either party. 'Goodwill' may or may not be 'valuable consideration' depending on the circumstances (usually, "did the party reasonably expect direct presonal gain as a result of this goodwill" - getting "laid or paid", not warm fuzzies)
Secondly, the license does not say 'the latest version' of GPL, but 'any later version' according to the user's choice - and the most likely reason for creating a v4 or v3.1 is to address loopholes in v3. Let us not forget that a corporation could also be a 'user' of the source.
The general wording in GPL encourages propagation of loopholes. Why? Because copyleft is itself a sort of 'loophole' in current 'normal' copyright use. Open software is best served by granting many rights and secondarily served by invoking a few carefull chosen restrictions. I think the FSF chose wisely in this case, but it was a devil's choice between keeping the primary source open (no matter what happens in court) and keeping all derivatives open forever.
This is just one reason (of several) why little in the GPL is clearly "no problem". Compromises were made. Good ones, but blind ones, in the absense of court rulings. A court ruling could be very specific to the case, or could begin to give us the information we need to start crafting a better license (but no single case will probably suffice, certainly not the first. Judges can be wary of untrodden turf -- if they see it as such -- most judges *don't* want to make precedent.)
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Quoting: You do not have to make the source available for download, just available to whoever wants it (especially those that have binaries of the code - and your obligation might stop here).
That's the beauty of it. Sure, you have a right to a copy of the code with nominal fee for media. What if media to me represents a load of paper ? At 0.05$ a sheet, I'll let you have a "copy" (print-out) of my code (Which will amount to 10000 sheets (500$). This would be considered reasonable under the GPL. Now, just imagine how many pages a printout of the kernel might take. What if they run it through a swahili translator before hand ? Or use a non-ocr'able font type ? You have a copy of the source code, which is useless unless you type it back in manually. The license allows for that. Fun heh ?
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
Sure beats living in the GPL world ..
Yeah, it's Monday, but that doesn't mean the company has to keep up with the latest version of the GPL'd code they're stealing. If Microsoft wanted to release a new compression tool based on code from gzip, and a new version of gzip was released, Microsoft would just keep using the old version of gzip. Of course, it would be illegal unless they released their new compression thingie under the GPL, and they couldn't say it was part of Windows unless they released the rest of Windows under the GPL, and Microsoft's legal department isn't stupid.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In the first place, I have to ask if there are any specific individuals who are doing this, or are you simply making the assumption that Slashdot poster ergo pro Napster et pro GPL?
Secondly, one fundamental difference between the two is that copyright is intended to enforce non-sharing while GPL is intended to enforce sharing. Though GPL purports to use copyright law as its legal foundation (one must use the tools that actually exist), it does not purport to do the same kind of thing as copyright. There is nothing inconsistent with supporting the principles of the GPL and not supporting the principles of copyright. (It is true that, legally speaking, the two go hand in hand, but that is a function of the laws of our society and not of the underlying rationales behind GPL and copyright.)
Thirdly, there is a big difference between Napster itself and the use of Napster to contravene copyright laws. Even if most users of Napster do use it to do things which are illegal if not unethical, it does not automatically mean that Napster itself, which is nothing more than an information sharing tool, is corrupt and indefensible.
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
If the GPL is deemed invalid, normal copyright laws will apply. The GPL doesn't really restrict you in any way: It gives you the "freedom" (I sound like a GNU-acolyte now..;) to modify and distribute under a list of terms. Now if you disagree on these terms, the GPL is void for you and you will need to be the copyright holder or be given another license that expressively gives you those rights.
It's the copyright laws that are draconian, not licenses like the GPL. This is somewhat related to the issue of half-full and half-empty bottles (depends on your perception of it, not what it truly is). Without copyright laws, the GPL would be draconian. If the world lived happily without them, I doubt RMS would suddenly create the GPL. It's a means to survival under current power-structures and predatory companies.
Maybe this will lend some understanding to why many BSD-guys don't like the GPL.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Well I already know this wont be a popular opinion - but here goes: I sincerely hope GPL is blown to millions of tiny bits and pieces in court. It's completely beyond my comprehension how you GPL bandwagon people have the ignornance to be able to refer to yourselves as the so-called "Free Software Foundation". How sad. Has everybody here forgotten just want kind of government we all live and work under here? Hmmmmm.... I believe its called Capitalism. Yeah thats the form of government the puts food on your table, pipes electricity into your computers, and actually gives you guys the freedom to write and support an archaic, overburdened, slow, and painfully difficult to use Operating System known as Linux. I also find it extremely amusing that you people refer to everything put out under GPL as "Open Source". GPL is NOT OPEN SOURCE. For a program to be truly open source - the source code must be redistributable without any restrictions. It must also be able to be modified and used in any way, shape, and form without ANY RESTRICTIONS. In otherwords OPEN SOURCE should = PUBLIC DOMAIN SOURCE But sadly enough this is not the case. The anarcists behind the FSF (yes that includes Richard Stallman) have decided that they want to protect their software and source code and they have done this by creating a license which acts more as a virus than anything else. Ask yourselves - who in gods name would want to steal your source code? Microsoft? Thats a good laugh. Ms Win2K uses less memory, runs a HELL of alot faster, and for the most part is MORE STABLE, and not only that - but its TEN MILLION TIMES EASIER to use than Linux. "Oh but people who use easy software are wimps" - well you pre-pubescent children have a long way to go then. Some people actually want to get something done and dont get too much of a kick out of learning cryptic commands such as ls, pwd, grep, vi, and other junk..... Okay guys - now Im prepared for the onslaught. Call the rest of your linux groupies and prepare to show me just how mature you guys are. Just to show you that I actually want to hear your brainwashed dribble - my updated email addy is: darkgamorck@home.com By the way - how many of you have been to slashdotsucks.net - its a great site. Also - a question: "Isn't it interesting how linux users have become even more fanatical than yuppie MACINTOSH user community in such a short period of time?" Gam
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
This isn't as much of a problem as you might think. Most of the software that's released under the GPL includes the clause that the software may be licensed under version whatever of the GPL or, at the licencee's option, any later version. That means that if problems are found in the GPL in a way that makes it invalid, the software should revert to standard copyright (i.e. copying forbidden). Then the FSF only has to release a new version of the GPL that fixes whatever was wrong before and everything is OK again.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Personally, I don't buy your claim that they are unrelated. Either you believe that people have the right to some say on what is done with their intellectual work (copyright, GPL, whatever) or you don't and people can do whatever they want
Yes, with the relevant bit being some say. It is not an all-or-nothing affair. You can conceive of a system whereby authors have a say over what is done with their intellectual work that includes both copyright and GPL, both, or neither. There is nothing essential about accepting the premises of one in order to accept the premises of the other, nor is it necessary to accept the premises of either in order to give authors some control over their work. There is no particular reason why the type and level of control afforded to authors by the laws could not be greater or lesser or different in nature. Not copyright nor GPL nor the two together can be said with any certainty to strike the perfect balance between the interests of authors and the interests of the public.
Both copyright and GPL are arbitrary sets of rules. Copyright says, "I will make this work public, but I retain the sole right to make copies of the work. You can do whatever you like with it, except reproduce it." GPL says, "I will make this work public. You can do whatever you like with it, except redistribute it under any conditions other than the ones set forth in this license."
Mechanically, GPL uses copyright to work, but its essence is not predicated on current copyright law. you could, for example, replace copyright law entirely with the GPL. That is, the only legal control authors would have over their work is the right to restrict non-GPLed redistribution. This is less control than they have now. Others might advocate more control, including control over who may access the work, control over who may use the ideas contained within the work and how, and so forth. The point is, the question not only of whether, but of how much and what kind of control authors should have over their works is most definitely a subject open to debate, and it is most certainly not improper to draw moral or ethical distinctions between different kinds of control.
That being said, I am not making a particular argument in support of either GPL or copyright (or both or neither). I am, however, saying that legal and moral aren't the same things, and that we can make fine-grained distinctions, where appropriate, between what is right and what is wrong.
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
Why the hell should they target a company that has been supporting the Linux community? The best office suite (IMHO) for Linux is shipped by Corel, and they have been helping to popularize Linux as much (if not more) than Mandrake.
In the call center I work in, most of our Linux calls are divided evenly among Mandrake and Corel. Corel may not be the best distro, but it still is helping to let newbies out of their Microsoft world and play with a real OS instead of a glorified word processor.
To die, to code, perchance to sleep; aye, there's the rub. For in this code of grep what sleep may come?
There's been a french study over GPL and its viability with french laws, I was wondering if there was an equivalent for other countries.
wolruf@gmail.com
What is wrong with using Napster to distribute an MP3 that has been released as "freeware"? Lars wants to sell their music to make money. Conversly people who GPL their code want it to be freely distributed. Your comparision is completely invalid!
-- Argel
IANAL
Now there's a whole load of courts in the US alone, and what one of them says is not necessarily picked up by others. Plus, for any given loophole discovered by the court, a patch could be developed. If the court declares the whole concept of GPL invalid, it's another matter. But how on earth can it do that?
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
. how the hell one can steal something that is supposedly completely free ( as in freedom )?
And have you stopped beating your wife? You are begging the question.
The GPL is of course NOT COMPLETELY FREE otherwise it would be public domain. It restricts the freedom of the recipient in so far as necessary to enforce the golden rule -- do unto others as I have done to you, at least as far as this particular piece of software is concerned.
In fact, any software which is "licensed" is by your definition "not completely free". BSD is not completely free. Your freedom is restricted in that you can't use the name of the developers to promote your product and you agree not to sue the author if the software has bugs.
GPL functions in essense as an agreement between the author and people who want to make derivative works. If you take something of value from somebody, under the terms of an agreement, then deliberately fail to fulfill your part of the agreement, then most people would consider that theft.
There is a kind of self referential loop in the logic of GPL. The reasoning I described assumes the existence of proprietary rights in software. However the GNU-ish position is that there should be no proprietary (in the sense of restricted and secret) software. They are essentially using what from their position is a bug in the legal system to prevent future thefts -- not from themselves, but from indirect recipients of software who have a right to source code. This position, while an apprent contradition, is morally consistent because it "takes away" a "right" which the recipient in actuality does not actually have to begin with.
The people who take a strong ideological position favoring BSD style licenses over GPL seem to take a third position, which is that proprietary software is kind of like cheating on your wife -- it's wrong, but its only a matter between the parties directly involved. In this position, GPL, because it takes the freedom to make proprietary forks away, is in itself a form of theft.
It is important to realize that people can and do use licenses without endorising the ideologies of the license's creators and/or backers (who themselves don't necessarily have the same position; I doubt the CA board of regents has a moral position against GPL). Companies that can and do release proprietary software also release GPL'd software because GPL provides a safer way to place the software in the public's hands than "public domain". In that case, violation of GPL is a violation of the terms in which they let you use their IP, and is perfectly consistent.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The GPL is binding upon the distributor, not the consumer, and so is "more real" in that its legal effect occurs even before the consumer opens the box. The consumer can do whatever he wants with the code once he gets it, as long as he doesn't distribute it an a manner inconsistent with the GPL. Therefore, your analogy to DVDs is invalid on this basis, although other analogies may still be made.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
1) Court is avoided. Life returns to normal.
2) GPL is upheld. Life returns to normal but with a little added secure feeling about the GPL.
3) GPL is NOT upheld. Then what? Does RMS have a contingency plan? Does all released GPL'd code revert to the public domain? To the BSD license? Does the FSF write a new GPL (GNGPL "GPL2 is Not GPL")?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
You can develop on a linux system and release something thats not under the GPL. Using a GPL'ed text editor to write your source code does not mean your source code is GPL'ed (nor does it have to be).
O.K, so what happens if the FSF goto court and the GPL is officially declared a load of unenforcable rubbish? What sort of possition will the FSF (And most of our favourite peices of software) be in then?
Although i see no reason why the GPL isn't as legal as a click-thru or a shrink wrap license, i believe a fair few EULA's have been laughed out of court in the past. The American legal system has always amazed me, i just hope this time it doesn't do anything daft.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
This matters to whom are the Authors. If you write code that your company pays you to write, then the Company owns the code. So I would say the Company is actually the Author and not you. That's a stretch, so let me rephrase it. The company owns the code, and lets get rid of the word Author.
If you write code on your own time and have no silly contracts with your company. You can publish it under GPL and still use it for any close source version as well. Since you own the code you can do what you want. But once you release that code under GPL, you can't go back and tell those that have it, that it is nolonger GPL and to pay a royalty. The contract is already made, and must be abide by you. If you later want to take your code and make it commercial, it is perfectly fine to do so. But what is out in GPL is always in GPL if not neccessarily mantained by you.
If the company you work for releases the code you write under GPL (under company dollars), the company can later release it under their own license.
What can't be done, is if you incorporate someone's patches and then use that update for your non-GPL version. You can't do that unless you get permission from the owner (better word than author) to use it in your closed-source version. So when someone gives a patch, that is like a new contract, and you have to abide by it as well as those that use your code.
This thread makes more sense if you replace the word "Author" with "Owner".
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
You arent, of course. You may run it however you want, linked to anything at all. You just cannot distribute it. The GPL says nothing about inhouse code use so use away (just dont ever release it in a product)! Distributing GPL software/libraries linked to non-GPL software/libraries is an entirely other thing, and that _is_ covered.
(Altho, you can find many examples in the world of commercial lawyering and licensing that would claim that the very action of running software is actually 'copying' it into RAM).
Actually, I believe that you already have the right to modify the software all you like. All the GPL says is that, if you distribute the software, you also must distribute the code to it and have both under the GPL. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could've sworn it said this somewhere in the GPL...
No flame intended, just a minor correction.
-RickHunter
His post was quite offensive but , basically, he is right. FSF != Open Source and many ( if not most) folks simply like to have source code because it helps to solve problems without supporting yet another utopian social couse some lunatic managed to come up. ...
RMS has no real world experience being shielded for most of his life by goverment funding in his University
Beside his coding skills he has nothig to offer us.
That's because that's not the topic of conversation. The topic is whether GPL enforcers are hypocritical.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
While the GPL requires it to remain open and be provided with source. You can charge to distribute it on physical media(CD, DVD, floppy, etc), but it must be available for download.
As broadband becomes more prevalent the requirement that it be available for download could be the most constraining to most companies. Most people still get their "free" OS via physical media such as a CD. That preserves a revenue stream for those companies. However if you can download and make your own cd in less than an hour, why drive to the store to buy it?
The GPL is a good thing, but whether or not it stands up to court is entirely another. The GPL is a license that you don't have to physically sign. If it loses on that basis, online privacy may still win in the long run, at the expense of "free" software.
I use "free" in brackets to represent free as in freedom
On the contrary. If the GPL is struck down, and people still have their act together, the GPL will adjust, heal and evolve into something better and stronger. A test is a great opportunity to see if something is broken, and then fix it if it is.
-- V was its Victim who cried out "But why?" --
I'd rather see all licences declared void including the GPL than all licences declared valid, including the GPL. Especially if UCITA relied on this fact. Obviously, (IMO) the best case would be the agreement that all licences that do not allow you to refuse to accept the terms, and restrict yourself under copyright asre valid, those that do not are not.
I'm sure others disagree.
As we can see they never fail ..
is there any precedence for a non-signed licence being viable?
Yes. For a contract to be valid you need offer, acceptance and consideration. Plenty of contracts aren't put in writing let alone signed.
I have a bad feeling that major corporation groupthink might really stomp the GPL in court...
and this is not even taking into consideration my low opinion of the US's judicial system.
The article doesn't seem to reveal the identity of the "major software house" but it's probably good to have a test case. If the GPL is to be given teeth via being held up in court, it is best to do so during a low-profile case. That way, a few years from now when Microsoft Linux is released, the FSF won't be pioneering testing the legality of the GPL at the same time it is battling its biggest foe.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
through community norms, like the Internet Death Penalty?
... In short, the notice is aimed at the perpetuation and enforcement of a norm that holds some force in this community, and it is therefore worth mentioning in a catalogue of rights in digital content.
Here is the most interesting quote:
Even so, copyleft no doubt carries some moral force in the on-line community. It therefore serves as an example of a non-binding, informal norm in cyberspace.
Is it feasible for the online community to self organize in such a way to effectively enforce its norms through extra-legal means? Would the community have enough clout in the software world, using a combination of more suasion, voluntary boycotting (including e-mail and packet filtering), and contracting/recruiting hassles, to outweight the benefits of stealing?
I for one would not work for a company that misused GPL'd code, nor would I contract with them; not because I'm particularly a GPL fanatic, but because it shows bad faith,and a willingness to freeload off the work of others.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's the whole point of the GPL: it says not to do anything bad. You see, if the software is in the public domain, then anyone can use it, modify it, repackage it &c. Were Linux PD, M$ could release change the source in a few places, release M$ Linux and charge $100 for it, all while ensuring that their proprietary changes break ordinary Linux kernels. suits would love this: `M$ Linux--see, it has to be better than that weird RodHut, um RidHot, um RedHat thingy!'
The GPL can be a nuisance sometimes, it's true. But so can anything else. The GPL serves its purpose admirably well: to ensure that ones code remains free and unfettered. It does not exist to make programmer's lives easier. The BSD makes a programmer's life easier, but it does not preserve the freedom of the software-as-a-whole (obviously the original software remains free). One chooses the license which one wants.
> If the GPL is struck down, and people still have their act together, the GPL will adjust, heal and evolve into something better and stronger.
Which is why it is important to use the or higher when you specify what version of the GPL you are releasing under. Otherwise you would legally be obligated to seek the permission of all contributors before you could start pedaling it under version 3.0 or whatever.
OTOH, that or higher worries me somewhat. Who's to say what GPL 9.3 will say?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The funny thing is that the guy who asked that posted himself with the +1 bonus...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Proposal: reform the patent and copyright system so that it pays an up-front fee out of taxes in exchange for putting IP into the public domain. This would only be payable to the original creator, of course (corporations need not apply). Better yet, detach this office from the "official" Federal Government, much the way the Fed works. That way creators of IP get income from it, but we can get all the copies we want for free. In fact, this encourages creative activities even more than the present system, because to get more money, you need to create more IP.
Problems, of course, abound.
1) The restrictions on prior art and such would have to be tightened profoundly. However, I think the only reason USTAPO sits on it's ass on this is that it doesn't directly cost the government money when a frivolous patent goes through the system. It's the consumers who bear the economic brunt.
2) Jesse Helms doesn't want his taxes going to subsidize the publishing of Hefty Hooters Magazine. I'm tempted to say "tough shit". I wouldn't want to have to pay for any IP generated by the Christian Coalition either, but I'd be willing to make the sacrifice for the sake of freedom.
So, my question is... Does anyone have constructive arguments on why this wouldn't work?
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
It certainly fits with Alan Cox's recent comments on linux-kernel.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
That doesn't affect the original author (which is the person it was suggested could remove the code from their website). The author already has the right to distribute the code, they don't need to comply with any licence conditions in order to do so.
Well if you can say 'Clicking here' enters you into an agreement, the you can also say 'copying this file.' Really, what is the difference?
I don't mean to defend Napster on an ethical basis, but I think it's important that they win their lawsuit on strictly legal grounds. The implications are staggering.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The GPL states (section 5):
The first sentence seems to be saying that the GPL is not a contract, and the rest says "So what? You still have to follow the rules."
If this argument made by the GPL is found invalid, then it still seems to be true that someone who wants to copy or modify GPLed code does not have the permission of the copyright holder to make such modification. So if the GPL is invalid, that would mean that it's not legal to copy or modify GPL code at all, not (as fantasized by some GPL opponents) that GPLed code would become public domain.
Of course, he can simply take it off his project website.
No sure about that... The GPL forces you to distribute the source-code. If you remove everything from your website, someone who downloaded a binary from it the day before still has a right to obtain the source from you.
Or is this a misinterpretation?
Jan
The GPL says (in clause 9) that the other party (the one getting the licence) can choose to switch to a later version of the license if they so choose. If they don't want to switch, then they don't have to.
However, if portions GPL v2, for example, were struck down, then people would be left without a legal licence. But if the license switching part were left intact (which it probably would since it allows users even more rights) then as soon as the FSF releases GPL v4, everyone can switch to that, and regain whatever rights the FSF grants them in GPL v4.
The GPL is actually very interesting reading. I personally like the clause (# 5) that spells out that the licence, and only the licence, is the only thing that gives you the right to redistribute and modify the software, and if you don't agree to the GPL, then you don't have the right to redistribte and modify the software (as per your default rights under the GPL).
Overall, for what it's goals are, it is very well spelt out, and takes into consideration most of the scenarios that people have suggested could 'break' it.
The real danger here is not so much that commerical companies steal GPL code for commercial applications. Yes, we don't like it, but I doubt that would kill free software or give commercial companies a big edge. The real danger, in my mind, is not that companies are quietly violating the GPL but that companies might find some way to declare the GPL invalid, or some other exploit which allows them to OPENLY use GPL code. Even more dangerous, in my opinion, would be people bringing lawsuits against free software developers trying to collect for lack of quality or merchantability (say, they used some app in a spot it wasn't designed for, or a beta version) in spite of common sense. I don't see how that could work, but there are a lot of things I don't understand about the legal system. Has it ever been established in law that you have to pay someone money in order to be able to hold them accountable for quality of software? I don't know, and IANAL, but I would be surprised if that point has been established. And even the bringing of the lawsuit would hurt developers who have no revenue to fight such dirty ploys. I think that is our real concern - not that companies snitch a little code, but that they try to litigate the open source movement out of existance!
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The best would be if they take a very small, poor software house (Corel ?) which cant afford a good lawyer to set a precedent in favour of the GPL
The GPL is binding upon the one who distributes the software, not the user. Traditional click-wrap liscenses are binding upon the user. Therein lies the difference.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Sorry to jump all over you, discussion on these issues blurs between legal and ethical pretty quickly and I took the "its OK" comments to mean the latter.
maybe the best comparison for Napster is with radar detectors. I don't claim to understand it, but it seems it can be legal to have a product/company whose express intent is to circumvent the law.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Hehe, this thread is funny. I would have to agree with FascDot, though. You have forgotten one important thing:
Joe Slaver thinks that human beings deserve the utmost respect. He also believes that blacks are subhuman. Is Joe hypocritcal when he beats his slaves?
Joe Slaver is not being hypocritical. His actions (beating the slave) are consistent with his belief (blacks are subhuman).
user@host 1% make love
Simply for the reason that, as it says in the article, it'll require some kind of changes to the existing laws in place to deal with either copyright or contracts. I can't see that this is going to help the GPL's case any - it's likely that a judge will go for the soft option and rule it invalid.
Of course this all depends on the exact circumstances of the case, which are being kept under wraps at the moment, and what happens if it goes to court. But the FSF will most likely try to avoid court altogether - since at present the GPL's legality is ambiguous a large portion of its effectiveness comes from its "moral" force, something that will mean less if the GPL is ruled invalid.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Hmmm. Interesting clarification, much appreciated.
Still, authors can ALWAYS move their own code into private distribution.
--Dan
In the past, GPL enforcement has been by the masses. I suspect that any company not in compliance with the GPL would get hacked big time. Slashdotted, then servers down, then a virus, then a boycott. There is no wisdon in a software company standing on the backs of the culture that created the internet while spitting on them.
Not to be picky but hasn't the RIAA or whoever introduced evidence that Napster's entire business plan was based on people using its software to get music illegally? And that they adjusted some protocols (logins etc) to apeal more to that purpose? If we're talking ethics and not just law here, I consider that more significant than a "wink wink, nudge nudge" copyright policy. Napster isn't just a "tool" its a venture funded company with a plan.
Digression: I once had a catalogue of "everyone is out to get you but our books and tools will help you get them first" kinda urban commando stuff. The bit I will always remember from it is the "executive letter opener" and "executive ice scraper." The ad copy for the "letter opener" drooled over the sharp edge you could put on them and the fact that they wouldn't show up at all on metal detectors. Then for the ice scraper, it talked about how "we don't know of any law against carrying an ice scraper - and this one is made of the same high quality material as the Executive letter opener." And just in case no one got the hint, it goes on to say "WARNING! Do not ever hit anyone with the Executive Ice Scraper! It will cause an extremely nasty gash requiring up to 17 stitches to close!"
Far as I'm concerned, Napster is just an Executive Ice Scraper. Legally they may get off scot free, but if we're talking "bad and good" please don't insult my inteligence by pretending its just a neutral tool that some people have unexpectedly chosen to use for piracy.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Linux is advancing quite well, and since it is, by definition it has a direction.
As it seems, many people think Microsoft's products are not even close to compete with the "Directionless Unix clone", which is good enough a reason.
"His actions (beating the slave) are consistent with his belief (blacks are subhuman)."
Irrelevant... His actions are *still* inconsistent with his belief that all humans are deserve the utmost respect.
I, and presumably you, know that blacks are not subhuman. There is no scientific basis for that belief. Therefore he is being hypocritical.
Adam
IANAL, but a friend of mine is a law student. Now let's get on with it.
I think that the issue is not the direct terms and obligations for you when you accept the GPL and use GPL software that others have written. Those terms are merely additional rights as you say, given under certain circumstances.
What is more troublesome and is the big legal question is the whole relicensing system - when you have made changes to the software and want to give it away to a third party, is that party obliged to accept the GPL because you had to accept the GPL to recieve the code in the first place? The GPL clearly says so, but it may not be so simple in the eyes of the law.
"Contract inheritance" isn't something that is easily taken upon. Remember first sale on books: Although the author always has and always will have the copyright on the book, issuing some sort of contract inside the book cover saying that "by bying this book you agree to never resell it for less than [insert price]" was deemed illegal. Issuing a form of software contract (including the GPL), restricting further transfer in the means of keeping that license applied to the product and it's relicensing for ever may be very, very close to this.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
Either you are a troll OR a 5th grader. If you are neither, I marvel at how you are able to use the Internet by yourself.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Something is missing here:
>...big company is supporting a BSD based OS rather than a linux one.
> And that is better since we can then use it as a development platform
I'm not sure what your misconceptions are, but whether it's BSD or Linux does not matter one bit to me as far as development is concerned.
> (remember, even Microsft is better for development, from a licencing point of view,
> since one can create proprietary products, not be obliged to give out source etc.)
Huh? Your only qualification for a development platform is the license? What about reliability? Ease of use? Cost? WinXX is better than what, doing what kind of development for what target?
Anyway, there is no difference in the restrictions on licenses for code that you develop between BSD and Linux. The license for code that you create is up to you. Where are you coming from?
>But then you don't use linux to develop anything but linux, do you?
Your bias is showing, as well as your ignorance. Actually, I use Linux to develop java apps for both server and client side. Can you guess where they run?
>whereas the rest of us use an OS to get a job done
Haha, you must be counting crashes, or megabytes per dialog window or something, or perhaps you are just counting the dollars in M$ bank account. The rest of us use linux as file servers, web servers, firewalls, dial-in access servers, and yes java development workstations. We have one box here that multi-boots w9x, wNT(actually, it boots whatever the latest-and-Greatest-at-the-moment M$ concoction is) just so that we can check out our apps in ie(we've spent more money on software that we really don't ever use for that one box...).
Somewhat OT, but interesting...I discovered an odd benchmark the other day. My Dell Inspiron 433MHz celeron laptop with redhat is 20% faster at the seti@home client than the 600MHz P3 Dell Optiplex workstation running the seti client under NT4+.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
>Then is it valid?
;-)
Whether it is or not, you are going to be bound by the least common denominator... copyright law. Copyright law won't allow direct cut-n-paste from one set of code to another, right?
So this will be either a test of GPL, or a test of copyright law. Either way, FSF would likely win...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
"Linux is a Registered Trademark of Linus Torvalds", which means that Microsoft cannot use the name "Linux" for its product, unless Linus Torvalds agrees.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature to help me spread!
Gorkman
Well, no, specifically I'm thinking of RPM and other RHAT-authored software. But still, intangibles count. When you sell a trademark, you are expected to transfer the goodwill associated with it. You can't sell a trademark and then go telling everyone "It's just a name, I'm still in the same business and still providing the same service."
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Why would they want to embrace something as antiquated as a free Unix clone?
The word you're looking for is 'trollishly', not 'rhetorically'.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Your quote, while interesting, doesn't really apply. It sounds like it was intended to guard against things like the following hypothetical example:
Company A gives Company B some code C under an NDA. B puts C into software S under the GPL and releases it. A sues B to make them stop releasing the source code. If the court agrees with A, the your snippet says "A can't stop releasing just the source code, they have to stop releasing EVERYTHING".
But if the court rules against some portion of the GPL ITSELF, then the meaning "satisfy...your obligations under this License" will change depending on what part was ruled against. In other words that snippet may not keep GPL'd code safe in the event of a negative court ruling.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"O yeah it is pain .. so is going to work every morning. What's your solution for that ?"
:-)
Stop working, change job, marry a wealthy woman, win the lottery, live on the street, rob a bank. Plenty of options, you just have to look for them.
About communism, what kind are you refering to:
communism 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m, noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
The distinction is crucial. As the Russians found out you can't force something down on people.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The NT kernel is SUPPOSED to be several orders of magnitude better than Linux/BSD, but is it, really? I can't count the number of times the NT kernel has puked on me. And I do mean a kernel fault, not some piddleyuke app crash that made the GUI ralph. Of course, unlike unix, if the GUI ralphs, so does everything else, but that's beside the point. (OK, OK, so if X goes down REALLY hard everything else dies, but that's pretty rare...) Microkernels are like communism: an idea which kicks unbelievable amounts of arse on paper, but which gets smeared all over the place in practice. In practice, macrokernels (ie Linux and BSD) have been shown to be more stable (the only highly stable microkernel-based OS I can think of is NeXTSTEP. Even MKLinux is less stable than regular Linux, in my experience), and generally somewhat faster, at the expense of using more RAM (but with 256MB in many new workstations, 2MB for a kernel is a drop in the bucket), and being a little less flexible. Although, Linux's modules are even more flexible, IMHO, than WinXX's drivers (namely, you don't have to reboot...) And yes, I did say faster... Most newer benchmarks suggest that Linux and BSD are as fast, if not faster than NT (ever since that butt-ugly context-switching kludge got streamlined). My own (admittedly limited) tests suggest that Linux beats NT for most tasks, except (usually) 3d graphics, and that's due to the lack of DRI drivers for anything except 3dfx (hint, hint, ATI, Matrox, step on the gas. NVidia, get a clue...), and I can't say that I've ever had Linux (the kernel itself) go down without either a bum (that is, incorrect, not buggy) driver or dodgy hardware. NT has barfed for no reason that I could see (maybe it was dodgy hardware, but I couldn't prove that...)
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
Why the negativity about Corel? They're based on
Debian, and they're bringing excellent stuff to
Linux.
His actions ARE consistent with his belief that blacks are subhuman. Being subhuman, the slaver does not need to treat the slave with utmost respect.
Who cares about scientific basis? It's got nothing to do with our definition of hypocritical.
You aren't getting this, are you?
user@host 1% make love
The key here is that nothing but the GPL grants me the right to distribute a derivative work.
Three buts:
1) If the GPL is not a contract, then can a permission be tied to a condition? Or even more esoteric, does one have to agree to a permission?
2) Linking to a library is not derivation under copyright law. Yet the FSF claims that it is.
3) Copyright law gives me a couple of exceptions that allow me to redistribute parts of copyrighted works under special circumstances.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Let's change the example, seeing how the current one is provocative:
Posit 1: Quortle believes that hurums are worthless.
Posit 2: Quortle believes that screnaws are not hurums.
Observation: Quortle pays highly for screnaws.
Quortle is not being hypocritical! If Posit 2 were:
Posit 2': Quortle believes that all screnaws are hurums.
then Quortle would by hypocritical.
I must say, this has been one successful troll: I'm a lurker, not a poster.
Damon
---
We've secretly replaced this mathematicians value of pi with 355/113.
Let's see if he notices!
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
But they are not consistene with his beliefs that all humans (which blacks are) deserve the utmost repspect.
You aren't getting this, are you?
Adam
If you think about it this may have an effect on almost every license based on the GPL. If the court basically ends up saying that parts of the GPL that restrict what someone can do with modified source and compiled binaries is invalid since the GPL is not a contract, that would indicate that such restrictions in other licenses are also invalid. Basically all of these licenses would be converted to a public domain or BSD type license. In fact there might be one could effect. That stupid Sun SCSL might also be declared partly invalid as well. Wouldn't it be something if Java ends up BSD or public domain. In other words there are many software developer who would not want to see a ruling against the GPL.
HE BELIEVES BLACKS ARE SUBHUMAN, making them NOT human, and not deserving the utmost respect. Yes, blacks are humans, but the slaver DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS.
user@host 1% make love
...is certainly different. If you release, or distribute someone else's code with yours, then certainly you have to abide by their license.
Fortunately, java doesn't have that problem.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
My guess is Microsoft over the Kerberos thing.
"Yes, blacks are humans, but the slaver DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS."
And again, it *does*not*matter*. The rest of the world knows that blacks are humans.
Adam
OK, I admit it. You had me going there for a minute. Good job.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The poster (warmi) makes a very valid point, that RMS claims that the GPL is Free Software, and Open Source, but many of us disagree with this, and would rather use a truly free license such as the BSD license. It's moronic moderators like this that need their moderation privilidges revoked.
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style o-
I pilfer (and redistribute as binary only) GPL code all the time when I'm in a rush and just need to find something to plug in. *shrug* Heh, maybe they should've tried to test their case on me instead of tangling with "Big Company." :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmaail.com
This track might be a somewhat difficult since the FSF would not necessairally have standing to do this, but the individual authors would.
Sorry if I'm wrong, but don't the FSF prefer that authors of GPL code sign the copyrights over to them to make the legal situation clearer? That would allow them to sue again over copyright infringement since they would hold that copyright.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
This is actually my only real gripe about the GPL; it screws with the end user by not allowing all the software on his system to use common libraries if the user chooses to use non-GPL software. But if that's not an issue, cheers.
claim that the very action of running software is actually 'copying' it into RAM
Of course that's just silly. If they want to get picky about that then it's easy enough to credibly claim that it's the kernel that does the copying when client software requests a library service. Besides, the GPL specifically disclaims the issue of running software.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Oh, Redhat has an expectation of zero profits? Not at all. They expect that externalities of the freedom of the GPL will result in large profits. If someone attacks the freedom of GPL'ed software, they attack Redhat's profits directly.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
> The big question then is this: With the licence gone, but surely not the author's copyright, how
> can anybody legally distribute the software ?
Easy, just notice that most (but not all) pieces of GPL software contain a notice to the effect:
You may copy and distribute this software according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, or at your option, any later version.
Then the FSF comes up with a new version of the GPL that fixes the legal bug in version 2, and things are back to normal.
I think the important issue is that the author of the GPL'ed software always owns the copyright to her work (unless she gives the copyright away or dies). The GPL is a means by which the author of the software effectively relaxes the copyright on her code and gives up some of her statutory rights to the software. So although redistributing GPL'ed code under a non-GPL license doesn't seem to constitute a breach of contract, it is more than likely a breach of copyright.
Legally speaking, what I have said (or what anyone else has said with regard to the GPL) may be wrong - the legal position of the GPL will only be clarified if and when a case gets to court.
Restrictions on the sharing of music are entirely artificial in nature. There's no inherent quality about any kind of information that prohibits it from being shared.
On the other hand, there are a finite number of cars, houses and other material goods; they cannot (presently) be copied and redistributed as trivially as we can copy and redistribute information. Information cannot be owned; it's impossible. Our laws don't even claim otherwise, they merely restrict some instances of certain types of redistribution of unauthorized copies.
So we do not HAVE to share music, and I would never argue that we do, music is more valuable to everyone when everyone can listen to, use and redistribute it without limits. If music were a tangible thing like cars, this would no longer hold true.
You've got to admit that the copyright, patent and trademark laws in this country are being soundly abused by moneyed interests. But the existance of any of these restrictions on the use of information are only justifiable when they serve a public good.
Communism of course, is a red herring. It might be nice, but I'm too cynical to believe that it'll ever be widespread. Most countries that claimed to be communist were in fact tyrannical dictatorships of the worst sort.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well I am fairly certain that under British law you can have a contract without speaking or signing any paper work. Consider the case where you get onto a bus... I believe you have then entered into an enforceable contract by boarding.
You know what I hate about the Disney channel? It makes me pay for watching movies I created, like the Little Mermaid, and Snow White...
Nice try. What I'm referring to is that the GPV extends itself to my code because I happened to allow linking with GPVed code. I don't claim the right to tell the author of a GPVed package what to do with his code; that he refuses to grant me the same consideration is odious.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
...and, as I predicted, the GPV zealots promptly marked down my message as a troll, even though I'm not trolling. I honestly believe the GPV needs to be disinfected one way or another.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
(I'm not a lawyer either, but...)
With web applications becoming more common, the public performance part could be more important than the actual distribution.
If I provide the functionality of a GPL program over the web, but do not distribute the program itself, what are my rights and obligations under the GPL? It is becoming a common and important scenario, and I don't see the answers as being very clear.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Anarchism != no structure
Libertarianism = less structure
Anarchism = *new* structure (flexible)
Libertarianism = freedom from regulation
Anarchism = freedom from oppression
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
I hereby nominate adamk for most doggedly determined troll of year.
ICQ#2584116
-- d'arcy poirot
I don't want to say ;)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Sure, intellectual property law is all about economics, but I don't think it addresses skill and talent in a meaningful way. It's all about the product: encouraging production of intellectual property.
The principle is that you will produce far more copyrightable works and patentable inventions if you allow them to be copyrighted and patented. In addition, without such protection, there's a lot more secret, proprietary, and contractually limited ideas and inventions out there. I believe this turns out to be a good thing, especially in the long run. It promotes the progress of science and useful arts, etc.
However, the law has become increasingly more oriented toward protecting financial interests at the expense of the broader public interest, and so I agree with your call for IP reform.
However, I note that the strong IP protection that the US has afforded is a major reason that we lead the world in scientific, creative, and information endeavors. It's simply so much more profitable to produce and own intellectual property which can be sold around the world than to manufacture widgets. I would even say that the business interests behind modern national and international IP law have delivered not just huge profits for themselves, but have in fact enabled the new information economy.
acceptance
In order for a contract to be a valid contract, both parties must accept the specific contract. Usually this acceptance is made by each party signing on the dotted line, or shaking hands, or saying "Yes, I Agree".
But in the case of the GPL we have a case where the user does not need to indicate any acceptance, and indeed, is not asked to. Merely saying "if you distribute then you indicate agreement" is just not good enough.
Furthermore, there is no specific contract. There is only a general contract. Even if I agree to the GPL "contract", the original author sure as hell hasn't, because he has no idea I even have his software! Contracts are always two-sided. That's why there must be consideration. In the case of the GPL-as-contract, we have only one side unilaterally setting terms to parties unknown, unnamed and unnumbered. If you go to a business of some kind and ask "does John Smith have a contract with you?", they will be able to definitively answer yes or no. But if you ask that of Richard Stallman, he will have no clue who John Smith is, let alone if he has agreed to the terms of the GPL.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This, I believe, is incorrect. I am pretty sure your obligation is to make the source available for a nominal fee, eg, the cost of the media involved. You do not have to make the source available for download, just available to whoever wants it (especially those that have binaries of the code - and your obligation might stop here).
The only way I could see the GPL being threatened is if someone argues that it infringes on the rights of the user / developer of derivative works (although, that would be a stretch, for sure, but American courts have thrown away common sense in the past, reference discussions on drug laws..)
Kudos!
..don't panic
Simple! Think b4 u rant. (oxymoron) :)
If you link to programs tha the GPL prohibits, you are not allowed to distribute the GPL program. You can link to the proprietary program however much you want, but you would not be able to distribute it (or any changes that made you do it) under the GPL. That is what the GPL claims, and does restrict.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
It looks to me like it's saying "You don't have to accept this contract, but if you don't you can't modify or distribute this program." It's sort of like the M$ EULA, which essentially says, "You don't have to accept this contract, but if you open the box containing the EULA, you have indicated acceptance of the contract." If the EULA is legal, then the GPL surely is.
:)
As for the rest of your argument, yes, that is correct.
I ANAL.
Brought to you buy non-lawyers in search of better acronyms.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Rule #1: sue the deep pockets
Except that I highly doubt that the FSF is viewing this as a money-making venture, but rather a defense of the validity of the GPL. Of course, I'm willing to put my lawyer up against a lot of the boobs currently out there, so maybe it's best that they didn't come after me. It's kind of a shame -- it would've been an awesome feeling knowing that I was the one who destroyed the GPL! :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If UCITA can enforce all those crappy agreements that big software makers force on us, why can we not use that same LAW to protect GPL'd software.
I am not a lawyer, however I cannot find any reason why we cannot use a bad law to our advantage (I know this is slightly off topic, but it makes some sense to me)
Jason
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
maybe the best comparison for Napster is with radar detectors.
Radar detector companies are another big corperate evil. Doing some research, you will find that the same companies that create radar detectors make the police radar. First, they go to the police, saying they have a new technology that can't be detected by current detectors. Wait a few years for all the police to have them. Then realease a detector for that radar. Repeat.
So maybe the court system was willing to turn a blind eye to those companies because they also create the radar police use.
------
Not a typewriter
MOST of what is in a linux distro is not the kernel. Most of the GPL'd software in any distro is the tool sets such as bash, gcc, etc. Many of these tools are also available and used by BSD based distros.
So it would take much more than simply replacing the kernel of a linux distro to produce a GPL-free release.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Linux can be bitch as well. Ever had X lockup so hard that even kill -9 wouldn't help ?
Of course, I expect that most GPL programmers wouldn't copy Lars' music in this way because they know how it'd feel. I know I wouldn't.
That being said, I am not a lawyer (but I play one on TV) but I find it difficult to believe that the GPL wouldn't be solid. As it only grants you rights you don't have under current law, if you don't agree to the obligations set forth in the GPL, you are still morally bound by the more restrictive requirements of Copyright law. You can still use the code for your own use, but if you distribute your changes, you're opening yourself up for a copyright lawsuit. The GPL is just a nice convention for saying "Play nice and we won't sue you for distributing derivative works." My idea of how copyright works may be too simplistic though (As I said, IANALBIPOOTV.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There's that old saying about following the spirit of something, rather than following it to the letter. :) ), warmongerers, and a whole host of others.
It's a case of everyone really understanding what is meant by the agreement. Nobody's really in any doubt.
The only way that it can be overturned is by someone actively trying to cause disruption and break "A Good Thing".
People who, historically, have been trying to break "Good Things" have often been called "Evil".
This includes the Brit Empire forcing it's new colonies into restrictive taxations etc. (Don't knock that one, I'm a Brit..
It always perplexes me when people refer to the Law system as a system of Justice, when, Justice is something that arises from the spirit of an agreement being upheld, and that so rarely happens in these circles these days..
Would be so nice to have this current system of Legalities and Legislation where the word is constantly debated return more to an environment where the spirit is sought and upheld.
Now, that truly would be a free country.
I hope someone wises up,and pushes the spirit of the GPL. We all know why it's there, and it's a "Good Thing". Breaking it would be a crying shame, and would be tothe detriment of a good many people.
Section 0 of the GNU GPL states:
(Emphasis added).
I would argue that the GPL doesn't explicitly grant public display and performance rights, but implicitly grants these rights through the highlighted language above.
A question is whether or not the GPL grants rights unless otherwise denied (subject to compliance requirements), or only grants specific rights. My reading of the license, including the Section 0: language above, is that all rights required to run a program are granted unless otherwise restricted, and that only copying, distribution, and modification are specifically restricted.
One of the issues which many would like to have addressed in GPL v3 is a linkage of distribution triggers to web-based, embedded, and CORBA-linked applications. These constitute a significantly different copyright environment than the one in which the GNU GPL was originally written.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Namecall all you want, but you totally miss the issues. I never denied that I rip GPL'ed software authors off left and right -- in fact, I just said that I pilfered (and continue to pilfer) from them. I do it because it gets me what I want while at the same time helping to damage the efforts of GPL worshippers. The difference is that even though I say that there are reasons for what I do, I don't try to weasel out of the fact that I am indeed stealing from them. The people I lambaste are the types who recoil like vampires from the sun whenever you call them pirates. If they had the stones to admit what they are, instead of the plethora of incredibly lame excuses they put out as to why they aren't thieves, I wouldn't lambaste them.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
This doesn't make sense to me. Consider the case of a small software company distributing software under a reasonably permissive license. (Or, in fact, selling copies without a license at all). Under these circumstances, you would be allowed to reverse engineer and perhaps do other things not often permitted for proprietary software. Further, suppose that this small software company sells out to Microsoft. They can change terms for later copies that they distribute, but MS can't retroactively change the terms of the license under which you acquired the software. Similarly, even if an author of GPL code sells the copyright to MS, there are still plenty of legally licensed copies that can be modified and redistributed.
Of course, MS might sue you for fraud if you misrepresented the commercial value of the copyright by not telling them that your software had been released under the GPL. But I don't see why you need to hold on to the copyright to meet your contractual obligations: by distributing it once, the software has been legally licensed and the rights granted by the license remain the same, whoever later owns the copyright. What would be illegal would be redistributing a copy distributed under the new license.
is there any precedence for a non-signed licence being viable?
Ahh, but that's the beauty of a license that grants additional rights instead of taking them away. Agreeing to the GPL -grants- you rights that you would not have normally with the absense of the GPL. Of course you don't have to agree to the GPL, but then the software falls back to the rights allowed under regular copyright law, which definately disallows distributing changes without authorization.
Haha, you're right. In fact, the GPL is not on trial at all. If the court says "no, the GPL is not valid", then code sharks are still breaking the law because nothing else gives them the right to do what they're doing. The GPL has no bearing on copyright law. Code sharks are punished based on infringement of copyright law--regardless of software licenses.
SoI read
either a lawsuit or a voluntary agreement to comply entered into by a major international software house that has done exactly what you postulate, less in the 'embrace and extend' model than in the 'security through obscurity' model, which is another reason why those who build works on top of free software sometimes try not to disclose source.
And I think Kerberos, probably wrong but...
IANAL but when I read it closely the GPL seems to be an offer on the part of the copyright holder of a contract under which people are allowed to redistribute it. (Something that they would otherwise not have the right to do.) If the copyright holder later did something that lost them their copyright you might have a right to sue them for not maintaining their end of an offered contract, but you have no copyright on the code and hence no right to permit the code to be given away.
At least that is the way I read it.
In support of that view look at the terms:
Term 0: The license only applies if the Copyright Holder gives permission. By aquiring the code you do not become copyright holder.
Term 1: Permission is granted to redistribute verbatim copies. No copyright is transferred.
Term 2: You are granted the right to make modifications if you meet specific conditions. These modifications would leave the copyright intertwined. I would guess that at this point for the original copyright owner to give away control of the copyright would be a contract conflict.
Term 3: Distribution rights. Again no transfer of copyright here.
Term 4: You may not request any other distribution terms. (Question relevant to Perl. If foo accepts Perl under the GPL, are they *bar*ed from distributing under the original terms? Looks like it!)
Term 5: A reminder that copyright law prevents you from redistributing if you do not negotiate a license with the copyright holder.
Term 6: A note that you have no obligations for the actions of the people that you distribute to. Obviously true since your contract is with the copyright holder(s). They must likewise seek a license with the copyright holder(s) and that is then a matter between the copyright holder and them.
Term 7: Basically outlines in detail the consequences of term 4. If you have no right to distribute except as the license allows, and you are unable to meet the license, then you cannot distribute.
Term 8: Affirms that the copyright holder may add terms regarding geography if there are likely to be enforcement problems of the license in those countries.
Term 9: Outlines FSF policy, and outlines out the consequence of accepting the statement that the FSF asks people to use.
Term 10: An explicit reminder of the rights of the copyright holder to negotiate different distribution terms at their will.
Terms 11, 12: The usual disclaimer in lieu of warranty that we know and love in software.
So it seems pretty clear to me. The license is an offered contract with the copyright holder. Should the copyright holder give up copyright then they are in serious danger of breaching their end of the offered contract. But that doesn't give you any rights to the software.
Regards,
Ben
PS Again, IANAL but I am pretty convinced of this line of reasoning.
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Then britain has very strange laws! Certainly the British bus passengers should expect legal rights and priviledges while they ride, but this is a very different thing than a contract. If this is the case in England, I suspect it derives not from the act of boarding the bus, from instead from the act of purchasing a fair (in the US, bills of sale can are construed as contracts, and is one of the basis' for the Commercial Code).
Of course, in the US, and especially with DMCA and UCITA, the act of tearing of shrink-wrap is considered more binding than a notarized signature. But so what. If Congress passed a law that said night was day and the blue was green, it still won't make it so.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Kinda funny. What I got from this article isn't, "Someone violated it, and this is who we are suing." It was more like, "This is why I have a job, and I promise that I will sue someone soon." It's akin to, "A meteor could strike tommorow." I'm not saying that I'm not glad that we have lawyers on our side. Thank God. Just, well, you know, the world didn't end on New Years...
Eh...
'Verson X or later' means "You may use this version of the GPL, or any later version at your discretion".
Clauses which say, "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time without notice" probably are not legal.
Why would you buy any software at all? I mean by this that you can get almost every single piece of software "for free" on warez sites or CDs. That's illegal, ok, but does that prevent a lot of people from getting the stuff?
Furthermore, under the GPL, nothing prevents you from copying the data from a friend/colleage/whatever's CD, then why bother going to the store?
I personally buy software (be it free or not) to encourage people to keep doing the stuff I like. As simple as that.
The GPL is a license that you don't have to physically sign. If it loses on that basis[snip]Then a lot of things would need to be modified, have you thought about all those "click if you agree" type of agreements? Or maybe are they unrelated? I don't know...
PS: Excuse my english
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
The big question then is this: With the licence gone, but surely not the author's copyright, how can anybody legally distribute the software ?
It looks like that if you don't have a licence at all, then you can't do squat with the software. And that includes any and all "violators".
From The GPL"
5. 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 based 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.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Some legal precedent for ya:
Mellon v. Delaware L & WR Co.
Tiverton Bd. of License Comm'rs v. Pastore
From the latter:
When a development after this Court grants certiorari or notes probable jurisdiction could have the effect of depriving the Court of jurisdiction due to the absence of a continuing case or controversy, that development should be called to the attention of the Court without delay. See this Court's Rules 34.1(g) (petitioner's statement of the case shall contain all that is material to the issues); 34.2 (respondent's brief may correct any omission from petitioner's statement); and 35.5 (parties may file supplemental briefs after briefs on the merits to point out intervening matters not contained in the merits briefs).
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot.
I would say the GPL stands a good chance of holding up in court.
Sounds like class warfare to me. Are you sure you belong in technical field ? Looks like you missed your boat by a long shot ...
There have been several suggestions as to who the Major Software House is. We won't know for sure today.
However, look around in 3-4 months time for a "Major Software House" (previously known only for distributing proprietary Winxx software) unexpectedly announcing in a blaze of publicity that they have seen the light and have a *new Linux product*(TM). Then we will know...
I don't understand the author's argument that some third party to whom the GPLd software is distributed is not privy to the contract. He says that some recipient of the software may not agree with the terms of the GPL. However, the user does agree to the license by using the software, correct? How is agreeing to the GPL as the terms by which software is distributed different from agreeing to the terms of some click-wrap agreement made by Microsoft or Adobe?
I do not understand why the lawyers make a distinction between these two end-user agreements:
In the case of GPLd code, everyone who uses it is privy to the agreement. The only difference between the case of Microsoft selling to the consumer and the FSF distributing software is that (legally) only Microsoft is allowed to distribute its stuff, whereas anyone can distribute GPLd code.
If the corporation unfortunate enough to be defending the breaking of the GPL has any foresight, they'll hire bright, brave lawyers and settle fast. (That would appear to disallow any Microsoft lawyer involved in the anti-trust case).
If they lose, the FSF will get some more funding. From the corporation.
If they win, that will certainly ease the consciences of more people in any copyright infringements or End User Lisencing Agreement violations that subsequently occur to them.
I cannot see any corporate mentality thinking either outcome a Good Thing.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
They are mutually exclusive (Sorta like Baked Alaska and Fried Ice Cream... mmmmmmmmmmmm -- sacrilicious). :-)
:)
you know, i was going to pu together a counter-arguement on this subject, and basically argue my point some more until i got to this line and realized how funny it was.
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
The point is that because you boarded the bus you are considered to have entered into an enforceable contract.
If you don't pay they can take you to court for breach of contract...
Shurely not? Obviously, the GPL is a prime issue to the Free Software Foundation. Equally obviously, the Open Source "movement", or "tribe", or whatever the amateur anthropolgist ESR has decided to call it this week, couldn't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. So long as there are BSD, PAL, public domain, and similar licences, they couldn't give a damn whether or not large applications are "embraced and extended" into the proprietary domain.
As ESR will explain to anyone who sits still for long enough, in loathsome Randian detail, this would just be a case of the heroic capitalists of the market following the logic of A equals A to the virtue of selfishness. He'd never dream of litigating anything against the capitalist heroes who have made him "quite a rich man once the smoke from the Linux IPOs has died down" (can anyone say "uncle Tom", massa?) The only kind of "free" the "Open Source Movement" interested in is not as in "speech", or as in "beer", but more like in "freedom grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- ie, if you're not an educated, property owning white male, you shouldn't expect anyone to look after you and you're basically fucked.
In conclusion, fuck Eric Raymond, and fuck the horse he rode in on. Starting with the horse. And if he writes another dull whiny tract about how hard his life is as a self-appointed spokesman, fuck him again. Until he learns to like it, you know, from behind.
--he's profane, but he's wise, he's streetlawyer
-- the most controversial site on the Web
However, if the lawsuit has anything to do with dynamic linking to a GPL library then I see the potential for trouble. Section 0 of the GPL states:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
Now if I write a program that does dynamic linking to a GPL library that I assume already exists on the client's computer, then how exactly am I copying, distributing, or modifying GPL code. I'm merely running the code and using it's result, which is not restricted unless the resulting action of the library call is somehow covered by the GPL (unlikely).
Perhaps I just don't know what I'm talking about, but I've never heard a good explanation of this. Elsewhere, the GPL indicates that linking is a bad thing and is covered by the license, though I can't tell how exactly.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Perhaps we need to coin a new phrase: "The GPL treats the justice system as damage and routes around it."
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
...or was the AC just trolling?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Not being a lawyer, the distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive copyright had escaped me. I found an interesting summary of the potential issues in a different context. You are clearly right about that.
I note with some some interest that neither public performance nor public display is covered by the GPL. Therefore both remain with the original copyright owner. Thus if a theme is GPLed, the copyright owner can potentially sue over a screenshot. There would appear to be nothing preventing Linus Torvalds to sue a publically available Linux server. I sort of knew that there were some unresolved issues around which a license could be developed. I had not realized that such major issues have been ignored by the GPL. In fact item 0 clearly explains that they are not addressed. (And one could theoretically ship a second license along with a piece of GPLed software putting restrictions on the use of said software for public display.)
Hmmm...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
So, it's not like ESR just got invited out of the blue to join the PTO advisory board. It took a lot of work from Open Source and Web freedom advocates.
Check out especially this page on BurnAllGifs.org and this article on Pigdog Journal. Cool groups like RTMark also got into the fight.
Of course, this story was submitted several times to Slashdot -- BEFORE the nominations process was over -- but apparently it wasn't important enough then to cover. And now that it's a done deal, it's covered here like it was an effortless thing.
Too bad Slashdot is doing such a bad job covering the important movements that are changing the face of the Internet. Just remember: for every rotten turn of events you read about on Slashdot, there's a group of dedicated people somewhere working to fight it. Too bad /. can't help you find them and work for freedom, too.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
The GPL would be the only basis by which a person of computer software has a right to reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the software. If the GPL were unenforceable for any reason, then the FSF might be out of luck on a contract theory, but would therefore be able to sue on a Copyright theory.
The defendant cannot consistently argue that the GPL is unenforceable, but nevertheless grants the defendant rights under a copyright. Even if a defendant argues for an implied license, such licenses can be revoked, leaving the company out of luck. No company can claim to have reasonably relied upon the implied license as a theory for making the license irrevocable, because it is unreasonable to assume that the implied license was not contingent upon the requirements (whether or not enforceable as a contract) of the GPL.
Full circle. No way out. The only option for the defendant is to decide which way she loses.
As far as I can tell, the big thing here is, will the "major software house" be forced to release all the source to whatever program of theirs is involved here. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I don't think anyone watching this case carefully thinks the outcome will be for the GPL authors actually LOSING their basic rights to the software!
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
The article also explains that the inserting of code into a closed source project could be a simple mistake. Anything under the GPL is public information. A coder may see a snippet in a newsgroup or a web page that is covered under the GPL, and not remember seeing it six months down the road and use a very simliar, derivative solution in a closed source project WITHOUT remembering that he had seen it in GPL source.
Mellon v. Delaware, L&WR Co. basically holds that a license should be presumed to be valid. It would take work to show a license (like say the GPL) invalid.
The Tiverton Bd. of License Comm'rs v. Pastore decision is a bit tougher to draw a relation to. After reading the case, though, I think it does relate. The USSC had argeed to hear a case where a license had been revoked due to an illegal search.
My gut feeling is that the USSC would have upheld the lower court's ruling (which denied the license revocation) since there was an expectation of Fourth Amendment rights. Thus the USSC would have brought together two differing positions (IL forcing bars to submit to illegal searches for license, and RI with no such requirement) without overturning the results of any particular case (abiding by stare decises. (sp?)) The part that CC quotes is the Court saying "Hey! We want to decide this case. Tell us if we're about to lose the ability to."
So what does that have to do with the GPL? Basically that licenses should be upheld unless clear reasons say otherwise. Then again, they could be made to say anything in the hands of a good lawyer.
So why is the Captain a troll? Because anyone who thinks that Slashdot readers would go to that much trouble to figure out what the hell he was trying to say without any decent explaination is obviously either an idoit or a troll. That, and it looks like he searched for "license" and "license revocation" on FindLaw and took the first hit on each.
-sk
Realistically, though, I doubt that the copyleft brigade are ever going to give up while there's any hope at all of using legal incumberances to protect the `freedom' of some software.
(and yes, I am a free software developer. Just not a GPL supporter).
Although I might myself be subject loosing
karma, I just have to respond to this.
The GPL is there for a reason. It is there
to make sure that the work of the authors
is not misused by putting it in closed-source
software.
That is the point behind the GPL, and it is
everybodys right as an author to choose whatever
license they feel like, so quit whining about it.
If NVidia doesn't want to release their drivers
GPL, they shouldn't use GPL-code in it, it is
as simple as that.
The GPL has been created to make sure that any
modifications and improvements to the code,
benefits the community.
If the GPL doesn't suit you, the BSD might.. but
it is all up to the author.
When the Copyright was started in England, it was for 7 years to a specific publishing company. This publishing company, in exchange for copyright, agreed to suppress books that the crown felt were not good for some reason.
What you are agreeing to, with copyright, is a history of opression, and free software is now the next target. Big companys are using it to say that we are infringing on their rights, and in that way we are becoming more of a society where the individual is worth nothing, but companies and other large groups are worth something. Perhaps free software is one of the only places to challenge that, but companies are using the courts to attempt to stop it. We have a few very small lobbies (FSF and some others) that have the money or time to try and protect us. If the GPL is ruled invalid, then we will have to find a new licence, but we will have to continue challenging them. One important battle is this, but we are losing battles on the side rather often. For example: DVD playing under Linux (and everything else except 2) has to use DeCSS because the MPAA's underling will not make one. We are losing it because of our very nature which leaves us disorganized. If something does not change, free software makers (shall we use the real word-hackers) will become as hunted as crackers.
Just my $.02
Support DeCSS and all other free software, against oppression.
If the GPL was on such poor legal ground why hasn't anyone challenged it yet?
-Hatta
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Whilst employment contracts are written by employers, they are certainly negotiable - the initial one you see simply establishes a baseline for negotiations.
I'm a contract engineer, and since I have to sign a new contract every 6-12 months, there are often a couple of clauses which I want to amend [typical problems are clauses relating to private work, payment schedules, holidays etc].
Money does not necessarily equal power; it simply means that you may have more [in terms of amount, not proportion] to lose when you go to court.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
at the risk of sounding like a troll...
what is the point of the GPL? i can't stand it. I still firmly believe that the GPL only impedes progress... remember when NVidia released its drivers which broke the GPL? Why should we be mad at NVidia for tying to provide stable hardware? Would you NVidia users rather that they wait 6 more months so they can code their own? The GPL is just another one of those things that has become cool to doo in the computer scene, although nobody really knows why they do it. If you want to make software free, you should just put it in the public domain. You'll be doing alot of people a favor, because you'll make it alot easier to deal with your software. If you don't want software free, charge people for it or don't include the source. If you really expect people to read and follow the terms of a license agreement which is 3 pages long, I got a bridge to sell you. Personally, I think it'd be best just to put all of your apps and code into the public domain, and create a CCL (common courtesy license) which basically says "please give me credit, and don't do anything bad." that's more realistic, and it keeps the software free. keeping the software 100%, no strings attatched free is what we should be aiming for.
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
Everything that takes itself too serious, eventually ends up dead...
IBM had a lot of trouble initially understanding it, it's an antilicense and usually licenses are designed to protect someone's "rights" where the GPL is designed to give away rights and insure that they are given away. Most EULAs also revolve around usage where as usage is generally left out of the GPL and it's aimed at the actual code itself. It was purely an academic excercise, they just didn't understand the logic behind it, it goes against everything they've been paid to do for their entire career. At one point, as a token offering, I suggested that IBM foot the bill and give RMS and the FSF access to 2 or 3 lawyers to clean it up, since it was clearly so confusing. The response was that the GPL was written well, probably by a lawyer and that they saw no reason why it wouldn't do what it was supposed to do.
I think IBM probably has a good legal department and they were somewhat worried about not breaking the GPL, you should have seen some of the initial guidelines for OSS within the corp. So I would assume that it will probably have teeth in court.
Or--here's a neat one--the author of a piece of code, perhaps a whole source file, who adds it to a project under the GPL and then, a week later, at work, decides to include it in a closed-source, commercial project there. Can code be un-GPLed?
This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
An author can reuse code all they want. They can license the code into the GPL common pool, and then turn around and do whatever they like with it--make their own secret derivations without deriving the source, most obviously.
This actually starts to get a bit sticky when core developers take patches from the outside world on GPL terms and then, since they're the copyright owner, incorporate those into closed source releases. But it's generally accepted that primary authors who do the initial work of coding the app, as well as all the request handling and patch integration, do have the legitimate right(as long as the patches are not too extensive) to relicense privately. Alladin, with Ghostscript, does this commonly to give printer manufacturers customized Postscript capabilities.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Several companies have complied with OpenSource licencing in the past. SunOS was based on BSD.
Even today, Nokia switches are based on FreeBSD. They use GPL'd code as well, and document it, supplying the source. There are several cases of the Apache web server being bundled with large commercial products (HP Openview for one), with licencing held intact. Even Microsoft has a Perl distribution for NT on their resource kit.
All of these large companies, not all of them pro-opensource, using open source licencing give our cause much greater strengh to stand on.
.. how this one ended up at "2".
I'm sorry, but this one is a troll.
The GPL hasn't been created to act as a virus,
but it might act that way if you are tempted to
use other peoples GPL-code, in your proprietary
work.
Besides.. wether or not ESR is an anarchist is
totally irrelevant. That is his personal conviction, not necessarily the conviction of the rest of the community.
If I as an author want to develop software, and
want to make sure that all distributions of it,
is open and free, I use the GPL.
If that means you can't use it for your proprietary work, tough luck, but you really don't
have the right to tell me to "fuck off".
It is like saying: "fuck you man, why can't I
steal your minivan? The neighbour lets me steal his!"
IANAL
One way to insure privity of subsequent users of the GPL'ed code is to include a reference to the GPL and a further requirement that any modification leave the reference intact within each file of the source code. This would include all header files, make files, configuration files (now you know the real reason that they all allow comments), as well as a LICENSE file.
Many packages already have license terms embedded in the source, but by no means ALL the source.
Because the source is the item being licensed by the GPL, having the license as part of the source at the top of the source pretty well puts any downstream user on notice.
Well it wasn't very obvious to the guy i was replying to; he seemed to imply you can't create closed source/propiertary software on linux at all.
I'd also like to see that post (#166) moderated up.
There is no problem updating the GPL to fix loopholes, because almost all GPL'ed code is specifically licensed under 'Version X or later'.
So existing code mostly allows a later version of the GPL to be applied. If at some point in the future we all start using GPL v3, the presumably future modifications to the GPL'ed codebase will be placed under that license. The derived work consists of part which can be licensed under GPLv3, and part which can be licensed under GPLv2 or v3. The only license under which the derived work can be distributed in GPLv3.
The FSF have done their homework here.
Copyright used to be a limited right. It expired, and was limited by things like the principle of first sale. Software licences have always taken the view that they can tell you exactly what you can and can't do with a piece of software (often, these days, to the extent that licences are made non-transferrable). The exact legality of this is a mess (the UCITA maybe clears this up a bit, but we know that has problems of its own...).
I'm not in a position to say whether GPL is enforcable or not, but I think it might be premature to think it's the author's choice.
"Jokes treat people with no sense of humor as damage and smacks them across the face."
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)