Slashdot Mirror
Ask an Attorney About Open Source Licensing
I first ran into Daniel B. Ravicher on the Open Source Initiative's license-discuss email list. He's a rarity: a young lawyer actively interested in and sympathetic to Open Source licensing. In fact, he wrote a detailed article on this topic for the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology last year while he was still in law school. Dan is now an associate at Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, a firm that handles, among other things, business law and intellectual property matters. Who better to ask about Open Source under the law? (The usual attorney disclaimer applies, of course -- that Dan can only answer general law questions, and if you want specific legal advice you must directly engage an attorney yourself.) One question per post, please. Tomorrow we'll forward 10 of the highest moderated ones to Dan by email, and put up his answers as soon as we get them back.
If there is only one decent way of writing something, then it's not just immune to the GPL, it's immune to copyright.
If I create a program from scratch, my relationship to that program is "owner". I can make derivative works, make copies, give copies to other people, sell copies to other people, anything at all.
If I publish that program under the GPL, and you download a copy, your relationship to that program is "GPL licensee". You can do anything with the program that the GPL allows.
And if I sell another copy of that program as a commercial project to Joe Blow, Joe's relationship to that program is "commercial licensee". Joe can do anything that Joe's license allows. The terms of that license are between Joe and me.
Is the Qt Public License (better known as the QPL really GPL-incompatible?
Another example which is confusing to me is GPL software bundled with Solaris 8. Sun now ships bash as a part of the OS and a completely supported application. They also ship the source, as required by GPL. But the GPL also says this:
bash is linked with libc. From reading the above paragraph, I would say that anyone except Sun may distribute bash binary for Solaris without distributing libc source, because of the OS component exception. But since Sun distributes bash and libc together, Sun would have to distribute libc under GPL too. So how come they don't do that?
As a troll you need to spend more time on topics that truly incense people. In order to achieve this, the topic would ideally be something that is true that people don't want to admit.
Your post, unfortunately makes some obviously false statements:
- GNOME's addition to the kernel
- Linux's license lending to abuse (the BSD license is far more abusable)
If you really want to generate venomous responses, concentrate on highly divisive assertions based in truth. For example:
"As the Linux kernel becomes more bloated and unwieldy, its developers have resorted to stealing more BSD code just to keep pace."
Thanks to all of you trolls for your attention in this matter.
Many people download from Napster, reverse engineer software like DeCSS, etc. Are there any general legal strategies, etc., that can be used to limit one's liability while still publishing information on things like cryptography?
Alternatively, how would one go about constructing a straw-man case most likely to overturn the DMCA's restriction on publication of said material?
I am sure there will be plenty of other GPL related questions. Mine is fairly narrow and specific. In that the GPL attempts thru a clevel legal hack to achieve a specific end result thru the use of copyright law that is different than what some envisioned the intent of copyright is, it has been suggested by some in the legal community that the GPL itself can be invalidated as a mis-use of copyright law. Is this a valid interpretation?
What complicates things is when he submits an entire file for you to add to your program. This entire file is itself copyrightable by that user, since it is not derived from your own source code, and you must abide by whatever license that user set forth or else exclude that file from your program. This is the case with the Linux kernel, where many files are copyrighted individually by their individual authors.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
A description of the program and what it does (i.e. source code), is just as much speech as a paper describing how to build an atomic bomb -- which, BTW, was a test case a few years back. See: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/neutronics/todd/nuc.bo mb.html
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Of course, this only applies to licenses that are a grant of copyright rights like the GPL. Licenses that take away rights (such as the "no reverse engineering" clause in nearly every piece of commercial software) are another story; this is why the industry is trying so hard to get UCITA passed.
--
I noticed
--
I noticed
It's getting about time to leave everywhere
Now what of antitrust law? Yes, we're doing this for the good of humanity, but larger institutions could (especially in the eyes of the courts) use Free Software as a way to quickly drown competitors. Could a company be held liable for releasing free software, especially if it's a "category killer" that makes the proprietary competition irrelevant?
Would the fact that the competition can build on the released codebase help matters any?
--
I noticed
--
I noticed
It's getting about time to leave everywhere
A possible strategy for making a profitable business based on open source software development would be to write an application, release it to the public under an open source license (e.g. the GPL), and then sell to other companies the right to use the application without the GPL's restrictions.
But what happens when other people, not associated with your company, start contributing bugfixes or improvements to the open source version? Can you sell your customers the right to use these patches in a way that violates the GPL, or are the patches effectively copyrighted by their respective authors and transferred to you under the GPL?
What if you were to keep the open source and the proprietary versions separate and you only sell licenses to use the proprietary version -- does this mean you cannot ever implement a bugfix in the proprietary version that someone has committed to the public version?
Zooko
I am an European citizen and working on (and have copyright of) an open-source project. What effect can American patents have on my work? Can I be sued by an American company? Since America has the majority of software-patents the US is my main concern in staying active in the OSS world.
Much has been made of the manner is which the GPL "infects" derivative works. My question is: What constitutes a derivative work?
For example, consider the following scenarios:
- I create a web application that runs under Apache on Linux.
- I use GCC (the GNU C compiler) to write and compile a standalone command-line program.
- I use GCC to write and compile a program that runs under KDE.
- I use GCC to write a program that is dynamically linked to a GPL'ed library.
- I use GCC to write a program that is statically linked to a GPL'ed library.
- I modify the source code of a GLP'ed library.
If I wish to distribute the software I created in these scenarios, in which cases must I use the GPL? Obviously, I must GPL in the last case and I need not GPL in the first case. What about the other cases?-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Realistically, if it came down to a fight in court, what do you believe are the chances the Gnu General Public License would be upheld and enforced? (And please don't answer with, "It depends" :-).)
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
What is more interesting: is it his prerogative to change the license and not release new additions under the GPL even though it is a derivative work of his GPLed code? I think so, because he never had to accept the GPL himself and thus falls back on his rights as author.
Or even: is he obligated to give you the sources (at the cost of distribution) just because the code was GPLed? I actually think he does not have to do that, again because he never had to accept the GPL himself for his own code.
In Dutch law, you cannot demand - for example - a brand computer for $9.95 if it's a misprint of $995, because it should have been obvious that you could not get a brand new computer for ten bucks.
I wonder how important this would be in the case of open source licenses and particulary the GPL, since its mere existance comes forth from a philosophy and releasing code under the GPL usually is done because the author supports that (GNU's) philosophy.
So, bottom line: if you put patented code into the GPLed program, you cannot redistribute it, which means you can't sell it to anyone.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
If I write a piece of software under license A. Someone else takes that software, makes modifications to it and then releases it under license B, what leagal recourse would I have? Let us say that A is the BSD license and B is the GPL. Can someone who created a derivitive work change the licensing for the whole work, or are just the changes that person made covered by the new license.
What is the best way to respond to a legal threat? In the past, I've been told to tell anyone that makes legal threats or demands of me or my software to talk to direct all such communications through my lawyer as a matter of policy. Is this a good policy? When does taking a matter public do more harm than good?
I wanted to use expat in a project at work inside a closed-source commercial application. I figured a quick review by the company's attorneys of the MPL would make help assuage the nervousness about using an open source library.
But the (very expensive) attorney quickly pronounced the license unworkable and told the CEO of the company that if you use open source, you have to open all the source of your applications. Last time I checked MPL wasn't GPL, but we couldn't use expat anyway. So who is right? Can an MPL library be used in a closed source app? If so, how does a lowly engineer counter expensive, but incorrect legal advice?
Be careful. Just because someone went to law school doesn't mean that they don't come from an open source programmer's background, or don't have the same political inclinations as you do...
My experience (as a law student) has been that most copyright law students do have the pro-copyright bias, but the balance is tipping. Damn, as soon as I pay off my student loans, I'd love to go work for the EFF!
Of course you can! GPLing code does not preclude licensing it under another license (commercial or what not). You could also claim that your product has lost "value" by hazingv the license violated....
As a software engineer (going on 8 years if you count comp sci grad school), and as a soon-to-be first year law student, I can answer this from my perspective. One of the many reasons I'm going into law is to make sure people who understand technology are influencing decisions and defending the rights of the people making a real difference in this world.
;)
If it's not clear where my heart is, let me just mention that I had UNIX on my license plate for 3 years. But in my "old age" I've become less interested in code and more interested in arguing
Chad
"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't." --Erica Jong
We want the agreement to accomplish three things:
- Stipulate that the code is being released to the project under the project's license (for our project this is the Apache License).
- Ensure that the contributor has permission to release the intellectual property to the project, including any necessary permission from their employer.
- Make sure that the contributor does not apply for patents for the code that they're submitting.
My question is:- Do you see legal value in this sort of agreement?
- Do you know of any boilerplate agreements that exist?
- Shouldn't more Open Source projects be worried about IP issues that a contributor agreement seeks to prevent?
Thanks!To summarise, what's the most effective means of doing a public service without risk of being sued for your efforts?
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
What is the validity of an agreement you don't sign? Does using (use/read the source, or even simply running it) the software imply you've read and agreed to the terms of the license?
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
To me it sounds like you are talking about distributing software in a "free" model, but in one which restricts anyone from profiting from its use(and/or)distribution. If that's you're talking about, then that's not free software. That's shareware.
"Free software" licensing is designed to protect the intellectual property (or maybe just ordinary property) rights of the owner, while still granting the public an unrestricted right to use the software. Public domain software is essentially the same thing as free, but without the intellectual property protection.
If you want to distribute software, but not unconditionally, then yes, you would need to license it. That's what a license is for, to set the terms under which you make you property available to others. I don't think the need for licenses has anything do do with the real or imagined existence of a "litigation crazed atmosphere in the US" (not that i believe it is imagined), but with the universaly accepted concept of "ownership" and how an owner can protect their property which is made availble to others.
If Microsoft were to "embrace and extend" Linux in the way that it did Java or kerberos, would Linus Torvalds, as owner of the Linux trademark, have legal ground to sue? What would be the substance of the suit/defense?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently unveiled the Open Audio License (OAL), which looks like a great way for aspiring musicians/other sound creators to collaborate and share their work.
Let's say I have release an audio sample under the OAL. If someone expresses interest in using my sample in a work that won't be released under the OAL can I sublicense my sample under a different license?
Also, when copywriting a song it is traditionally not only the digital or analog representation of the sound of a song that is copywrited, but also more abstract elements like the melody and lyrics. How would an audio sample containing those elements be protected by the OAL? Would someone using the same melody from a different source (e.g. they figured out my synth line and played it on their guitar) without permission be in violation of the OAL?
- loadable kernel modules. Linus has said he does not view these as derived works of the kernel.
- loadable kernel modules that require a custom-hacked kernel. Linus has said that he does view these as derived works of the kernel.
- Perl modules: how intimate do you have to get with a module to be a derived work?
- .Net, the hot topic de jour: if someone provides a GPL'd
.Net service, are programs that use that service derived works? If so, is not a web client a derived work of a web server, and vice versa? If not, then is putting your program on a separate machine sufficient to escape the GPL of the software it connects to? Is putting it in a separate process sufficient to escape the GPL?
Crispin----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Can they? Or can they just take my idea and get some other people to sign the papers and claim to be inventor? If they can force you, how do they go about doing it? A court order or something?
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
My question is what can we do as a group to change the perceptions and misconceptions that judges specifically, and courts in general have toward open source licensing. This industry has grown up telling us all that almost everything belongs to someone. How can we turn over a new leaf and bring into fruition the thought that yes, we can share, that it's OK to share?
The main question I have is, how do you enforce your GPL or other Open Source licensed product? Certainly, you can go to the offending party, and say, "You are in violation of the license agreement," but if they don't comply, what can you do? What are the damages? If I GPL my software, I can't very well go to court and say "You are stealing my property and costing me money" and thus sue for money lost since, after all, the GPL means anyone can copy it without paying. Without a ton of money to begin with, I can't do anything at all about people violating the licence even if there were monetary damages. So, I'd like an attorney's opinion on what tack you should take when trying to enforce GPL/Artistic/BSD or other Open Source licenses in a way that would be effective.
What are the implications of the law that says "Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection."?
Does this mean that all software written by Government agencies is public domain?
Does this mean that the NSA cannot release Linux modifications under the terms of the GPL?
Does this mean that Microsoft's apparent worries about Government sponsored GPL code are unnecessary?
Hi,
/. just go nuts when the discussion moves onto copyright law , but the fact is that for the GPL to be enforceable, we NEED a very very strong protection on software. If "we" get it, so does MS. And MS is likely to be working very hard to insure that they have the law on their side, thus doing work for the open source/free software/alternative licencing creed communities.
I've been reading a lot about the anti-open source crusade by Microsoft.
Now the way I see this debate is: for the crazy hyper restrictive bordeline abusive EULAS that are now common in the software word, a very strong copyright law must exist. The law must give wide and far reaching means to the autors to control the distribution of their works.
Now, if the law gives MS the right to control their works in such a complete and broad way, how can a licence like the GPL or any other community based licence not be strenghten by the strong stance software developpers are taking?
It seems to me that for MS to win on this front, "we" have to win to.
Or is there something I don't get? I know some people on
Is there a loophole where the rights of MS on their software could be different that rights granted by open licences?
One of the common arguments made against using Open Source software is the "somoene to sue" argument. It goes something like, "If something goes wrong with Linux, there is no single entity or person who can be held accountable. However, when using software from [Insert name of large commercial software company], you know there is a single entity to sue, should said software go wrong."
Given the text of most commercial software licenses, which limit warrenties to defects in media and exclude any damages arising from use, how valid is this argument?
If I install, for example, Micorsoft Accounting 1.0 and, due to a bug in Micorsoft's code, suffer financial loss, can I realisticly sue Micorsoft and what would be the odds of winning?
In short, is their any validity to the premise that commercial software companies can and are held more legally accountable for bugs in their software?
Thanks
This is easy.
You can license your own product under multiple licenses. Commercial vendors do this all this time with proprietary code. You can also release a product under multiple Open Source licenses. If you are the copyright holder, you control the licenses.
Now, you can't retroactively change the licensing of version 1.0 or any other released versions to a non-GPL license, because you've already got a binding license agreement with your users. However, any future releases of the software can be licensed as the author sees fit.
On the other hand, if you accept GPL'ed patches, and you don't get copyright from the patch owner, and you don't get their permission to relicense the work, then you are in violation of the GPL as it applies to their works.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
There are quite a few lawyers who believe in open source. Personally, I think the GPL is a bit too predatory, but I do believe that open source software in general is a necessary counter balance to the increasingly vicious behavior of closed source suppliers like Microsoft. The problem is, it's very difficult to get funding to challenge Microsoft's dominance in operating systems, as well as certain applications. So the only legitimate challengers are open source folks... who don't need to make money to be successful.
I think of the open source movement as the software analogue to the ACLU. They are necessary to counteract overly acquisitive folks who want to trample our rights. Sometimes they do things I can't support, but in general, their existence is necessary to balance the existence of their opponents.
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the GPL, or of Mr. Stallman. And he isn't much of a fan of mine. But my original interest in open source stems from having used programs that are open source, and having coded in the past. I may not get anything out of it, but I do support the EFF, and the open source community... even if they think I'm evil sometimes.
And you know, open source guys do like patents sometimes... you'd be surprised at how many folks whose code is in the kernel have applied for patents...
Thalia
There is a high demand for IP (read patent) lawyers. The demand for business lawyers in the high tech field is decreasing as a result of the downturn in the economy (not surprising). But the demand for intellectual property work has not decreased in Silicon Valley. Starting salary for IP lawyers is about $120K, and over the 5-8 years to partnership it goes up to about $200K, with bonuses possible (depending on the hours you work). Whether that offsets law school or not is an open question. Consultants can make more... on the other hand, lawyers have fairly steady work and get benefits.
But to be a good (and happy) IP lawyer, you should like to write papers (things like documentation natch!), research, and listen well.
And, of course, you may lose some of the respect of your peers. There will be those who think you sold out... so think carefully.
Thalia
Don't ever say you can't afford it: I know it is possible, and yes, you will go into debt, but it can be done. Case in point:
Three years ago my friend started a protracted court battle, over all things, the rights regarding an easement to get to a house he bought. The case was long and complicated, and basically boiled down to one asshole thinking he could change the rules, and with enough money, overcome my friend.
Now, my friend is a truck driver - not rich by any means, but one of the best individuals you could ever know. He would truely give you the shirt off his back - both figuratively, and literally. I have seen him do things and help people, strangers even, just because it was the right thing to do. Anyhow - he didn't have a lot of money, but he knew he wasn't going to let this guy cave him in over a simple road (because that is what it boiled down to - a road to the top of the mountain upon which the house sits).
He went into debt - HUGE DEBT. He had the family supporting him, in every way - food, friendship, housing (he has lived under his mother-in-law's house, in the basement apartment, for those years), even money in those times when we could get him to take a little (he is very proud, and will not take handouts - ya gotta sneak em in). He worked every day, and weekends (still does, gotta pay the lawyers), sometime pulling 24 hour shifts for a couple of days - most of the time working 12-16 hour days. Sometimes I would ride with him - to talk to him, keep him awake on the weekends, tell him something to keep his spirits up.
In the end, he is coming out of it winning - he has spent a lot of money, but his hard work and perseverence has paid off, and he will have a very nice house to retire in, indeed. He deserves it, more than I can ever convey.
So, it is possible - if you think you are right, you should pursue it. You may have to work yourself to death, maybe take a second job, who knows what else - but defending your rights and what you believe in is never an easy job - if it were, far fewer people would have died throughout history defending those ideals...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
In my mind, the possible threat that the UCTIA poses to the entire Free Software industry/movement is reason enough to oppose it (though not the only reason).
I'm not willing to leave my rights to the vagraties of some random sequence of future judges' decisions.(especially given the apparent hostility of some judges to the free software movement (e.g. 2600 decision)).
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
How would the GPL hold up in a large, drawn out, court battle? In yoiur honest opinion. IE, is the license enforceable?
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
1) You create program "Foo v1.0", release under GPL
2) You change string "Hello World" to "Goodbye World", and release "Foo v2.0", under MS-License.
You are totally within all your rights to do this. You "own" Foo, and release it to *OTHERS* under GPL. When you make changes to *your* code, and re-release, life is good.
However, consider the following:
1.5) HelpfulUser submits a modification to you which adds a feature. They give you license to use that code as GPL.
...in this case, you *cannot* relicense your code with their code under a more proprietary license than the GPL. That's because it's not all your code.
For your last question: "Why can't a user of the Windows version sue for the source code, citing the GPL on the *NIX version? Why doesn't the GPL on the *NIX version trump the proprietary license on the Windows version?"
From m-w: License: a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful
It is unlawful to run code that belongs to other people without their permission. Usually companies give users a license (permission) to use their code, and it is totally legit for the *owner* of the code to discriminate (or place restrictions on it's use) when letting other people use it.
--Robert
Just so you know, a minaret is a kind of tower. I am pretty sure fingers cannot weave minarets in any sense. Maybe you meant pirouettes?
Although I don't know what they would be doing weaving those either.
-your friendly grammar nazi,
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
The open source community interaction with law and politics to date has been almost completely reactive. Typically some company or governement institution has or is about to do something draconian before we are able to mobilize. Sometimes we get there in time, sometimes not. Examples are: DMCA, UCITA, and hundreds of software patents, Microsoft's embrace and extend campaign of the week, ... the list goes on.
What can we do as a community to be more effective in protecting ourselves. I'm someone who has joined the EFF, written letters to the copyright office, participated heavily on Openlaw, and written letters to my Congressmen. Many of us are involved in these ways, but somehow we've got to take it up a notch. What's the next step?
Most employers today require their employees to sign IP agreements. These basically state that any ideas you produce while working for the company are the property of the company.
As they own the idea, it's the company can patent it at their disgression.
If you happen to have an idea outside work hours that relates closely to your work, a court would probably rule in favour of your employer.
Yet the patent law requires inventions to be described in a way that one who "is of ordinary skill in the subject" (ie of the invention, not the wired patent law language) has to be able to read the patent and be able to understand it .... arguably this would invalidate the bulk of the patents written today .... but I doubt one could actually get such a ruling in the current climate .... many houses of cards would come tumbling down.
So my question .... has the concept of publishing patents in order to share the idea so that society as a whole can progress faster really just become something that we pay lip service to? or is maybe Open Source a return to that more idealistic age when people did read others patents and learned form them? or maybe to something more like the middle ages when things like the making of stained glass was kept under trade secret status, while music was freely available to anyone who could whistle?
My understanding is that copyright protection has been extended to source code by classifying it as a "literary work".
If this is the case then how can source code be both a literary work and anything less than speech?
It would seem to me that either code is speech or it is not copyrightable.
What part of Dan can only answer general law questions, and if you want specific legal advice you must directly engage an attorney yourself did you not understand?
I keep seeing all of these people ask the same thing about the GPL, and haven't noticed anything at all about DeCSS yet. So, what is your opinion on the legality of DeCSS, and what about the DMCA being constitutional (mainly it being used as the reason you can't link to the code -- how can this work with the idea of free speech)? I really want to know how exactly the DMCA can be used to supress information (Like the SDMI being cracked research paper), and still comply with such important things as free speech?
-------------
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Since every trivial thing you can do with software these days is patented, doesn't releasing your open source also open you up to patent infringement attacks?
The only good weather is bad weather.
Really? Tell me, what ideas is your drive communicating to you when it makes noises? Perhaps it's in a language that only you and your Martian friends can understand?
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Until source code is compiled, it's just a bunch of text. And like any text, it expresses ideas. Judge Kaplan and the inventors of the DMCA didn't seem to realize that. I can publish instructions on how to make a bomb - that's protected by the First Amendment. Actually making and using a bomb is a different story altogether. The source code to DeCSS should be no different, yet the court system has a hard time understanding that.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Developers of Open Source software typically don't have large reserves of cash and big corporations backing them up. So far, the DMCA has been used against us, but technically anyone should be able to use it to protect his intellectual property. In what ways can an Open Source developer make us of the DMCA?
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Every programmer knows that source code is speech, and should be protected like any other speech. However, the courts just don't seem to realize that, probably because none of the judges have ever been programmers. What would it take for the court system to generally acknowledge that source code is speech, and how long will it take for that to happen? What do you think will be the biggest ramifications if/when it does happen?
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I still wonder if there is any case law on "clone" products? I mean, think of diet drugs: how many people create knock-off products of a trademarked "big" product like "metabolife;" I guess what I am asking is if someone could create a product called "metabodrine" (refering to the ephedrine), could they get sued? What about grocery store-brand konckoff names, like "Alpine Mist" for a generic Mountain Dew? Can Pesico sue?
I think this is of high relvance to the open source community, since a lot of people get started in projects when they see the downside to a commercial piece of software that really needs a quality open source competitor. Do these folks have a commercial or fair-use right to even poke fun at the name of a commercial competitor?
Is it free/protected speech?
The way I see it, it is like the difference between a counterfeit and a copy in the art world: fine art counterfeits are meant to fool the world; a copy is simply a reproduction that is clearly NOT the original; differentiated, but certainly referring to the original. Of course, I bet federal judges are more interested in case law than art theory, so I am interested to see what is protected in the case of free speech vs. trademark infringement?
Is there a balancing test provided in federal case law?
...to propietary software. Note: Hopefully this is not off topic, but this (in addition to licensing), seems to be an important issue.
I have noticed that many open source projects are started as an alternative to a closed source product. For, example, from the looks of it, OASIS (an open sourc ad server), seems to be started by folks who wanted a better, open-source alternative to RealMedia's OAS (open AdStream). The name is very similar; likewise, *-GL or *-GLX seems to be the norm for Open-GL clones. From what I read on Slashdot and elsewhere, it seems SGI is more than happy to sue some of those *GL[X]? folks for trademark infringement.
So, I guess, my question is: if you create an open-source project that is designed to compete with a commercial product, and you name is similar (like OASIS vs. OAS), what liabilities might you have in terms of trademark infringement? What is the likelyhood that a trademark holder would have the grounds to sue? Are there any legal tests/thresholds to determine this? Well-known federal case-law?
Yes.
The GPL will always apply to the code he released under it. A license he applies to later releases cannot apply to the code he released under the GPL, because he has given up exclusive rights to it. For example, ID Software can't "recall" the Quake source just because people are using it to make cheating clients.
My question is this:
Do law schools adaquately inform, instruct, and/or familiarize student IP or Contract attorneys for representing OR litigating against Open Source issues. Specifically the GPL and the like?
How many attornys are familiar with the GPL? Or is the research and familiarity done AFTER a case is assumed by the attorney?
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
IANAL either,
What you say is true (I think), but the question delt with needing clarification concerning the EEF's lawyer (in the link) saying "Open Source" is one way to insulate yourself from this liability.
Posting source capable of infringement (whether intentional or not -- even if modification of the code is required), by your definition of "contributory", would aid and abet an infringing activity.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Fred von Lohmann wrote a White Paper for the EEF concerning avoidance of "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement" (being liable for writing software that promotes "fair use", but can be used for copyright infringement).
In that, he states guidelines for developers. One of the guidelines is: "Be open source".
I would think Open Source would set you up for liability in such matters: anybody who modified your code, making it able to infringe on copyrights, would make you vicariously liable for opening the code in the first place.
Or, take for example, TiVo. Their systems are open source, they've posted their kernel and tool modifications on their web site (as per the GPL). Now they're worried that someone could use that to easily create code that will allow MPEG extraction from the unit (and widespread distribution of copyrighted materials).
I'm not sure how being open source can protect a software developer from such litigation.
Can you explain this?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
What do you think of Distributed Copyright? Especially the suggested remedy sent to Judge Jackson? Thank you! Clark Evans
You know, law is strange there in the US. I always hear people saying that they can't confront bug companies because they don't have the money. I'm just curious, but don't you have free lawyers there, paid by the government? Or they are so bad that they are out of question?
Could someone explain how can you make justice this way?
--
This space left intentionally blank.
Here's one--
Let's say you are a programmer, and you have a full-time job programming for your employer. Here are a couple of situations that occur to me where there could be a legal grey area:
1) Let's say you write your own library toolkit or whatnot to add on to a GPL'd piece of software. Like a package of extensions for emacs, or a set of quant or math libs to be used with gcc. You want to publish it on the web for other to use under the GPL since, after all, it's only useful when combined with the GPL application. Your employer says "No, you are in our employ, we're going to release these libraries compiled and under a closed-source license." Now:
a) On face, who's right?
b) Assuming this WASN'T specifically assigned or budgeted by the company, but you did it while working on a project in order to make your work easier, who's right?
2) You work for a company as a programmer, and on your own time, in your own home, you write a fabulously effective and highly marketable piece of software. You want to release it GPL, but your boss gets wind of it and says "No, your are employed as a programmer, all of your work while under our employ belongs to us." Who's right?
I realize these may be questions more geared towards who owns what when you're employed as a coder, but I'm tossing them out anyway.
Cheers,
Eric Pogrelis
If you are working on a game and wish to GPL the game but not the "artwork" then the program you can simply specify that the GPL covers the software and that all artwork is seperatly copyrighted and licensed. These files can be in any format, however your code which uses it will be GPL so people can figure out at worst how to rewrite it. For an example of where this has been done (well sort of, they didn't start with any GPL) is Quake! All you need to do is make the distribution cleanly seperated and be happy in the knowledge that lots of people will copy the ancillary files aswell.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Offer support for a game? It's a bad game then.
GPL is a very good license, but it's not one-size-fits-all. There a many places where GPL is just not the way to go.
Cheers.
KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing
Now, he's not releasing it under the GPL anymore. Since he owns the code, he never had to agree to obey the GPL. This is the one fundamental weakness of open source projects. With many contributors, no one really owns it. That's why XEmacs split from GNU Emacs. The FSF was insisting that all patches have their copyrights turned over, so the the FSF would 100% own the code.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The author of the original code is not bound by licensing agreements because he wrote it. He owns the copyright. Hence, he's not bound by the GPL. Now then, had he accepted GPLed patches without requiring the submitters to surrender their copyrights to him, then maybe that'd be different.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
A compiler/interpreter translates english-esque source code to a form understandable by the machine, no? Does this mean English and French should be treated differently?
Many people talk about "contamination". For example, they will say things like, "if you are writing a compiler you cannot look at the source for gcc because it will contaminate you and you might later be held liable for GPL violation".
I'm inclined to believe that this is FUD on the part of the Free Software community designed to make proprietary developers overly shy about getting ideas from other people's sources and/or to convince them that they need to GPL their work if they get ideas from GPL'd works.
Unless your work can be shown to be plainly derivative of the GPL'd work, I find it hard to imagine that there could be any legitimate claim of "contamination".
As a non-programming example, let me cite the recent "The Wind Done Gone" case. This was a violation of "Gone With The Wind" copyright because it used characters and places from GWTW. However, if the author had simply written a Southern novel, or made passing reference to Tara, or even done a parody of GWTW it would have been OK. In the case of a parody, the author would have certainly read all of GWTW but the parody would be considered a separate work.
Likewise, if I read all the source for gcc, but create a totally different compiler from scratch using compiler algorithms that are generally known, and have a complete understanding of the working of the compiler as an independant work, and do not do any cut-n-paste from gcc, I don't see how any charge of "contamination" can be levied.
Also, I have never heard of "contamination" in music, film, or other intellectual persuits. Except of course that there are limits on "sampling" which is analogous to cut-n-paste.
As a side note, how do you feel about copyrights on "snippets". For example, some people have tried to pass off Duff's Device as GPL, when the original USENET correspondance made no mention of GPL.
I'm of the opinion that code less than a certain length shouldn't be copyrighted, but placed in the public domain. However, *can* such short code be copyrighted? Is there any precedent in music (such as copyrighted "riffs") or film (such as attempts to copyright a camera technique, e.g., the "Matrix" pan).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Well for criminal cases yes, there are free attorneys provided by the state, but thats for criminal charges and things of that nature only.. Civil cases like this one you can't obtain a free lawyer from the government (unfortunately). And lawyers here are ungodly expensive, I was serious when I said put myself into debt for the greater part of the rest of my life, lawyer fees (especially if the case drags out) can top millions.. which is a strategy used by big corporations.. Instead of fighting for whats just, they fight until one side runs out of money.. its sad..
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
I obviously don't have the funds to compete in the courtroom with Big Corporation X, and even if I were to try, the expense and time alone would set me into debt for probably the greater part of the rest of my life. What chance does the GPL or any other Open Source licensed software have, if a good part of it's development team is composed of just average guys with bills, debt and little free time?
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Has author has accepted patches / bug fix's to the original code?
If these where given to him under the GPL then would he need to remove these from the version he is selling, or provide the source as it containing GPL code?
Or is there a minimum % content before the GPL would be enforceable
I'm guessing here, but I suspect that Morrison was referring to the finger twirling in the shape of a minaret - i.e. a thin pointy tower. Either that, the minarets are made of wool, or he was demonstrating why he was known as such a drug hoover again.
Alternatively, maybe the subject is making a tapestry of a castle? If my girlfriend is in a mood shes known to do the odd bit of cross-stitch, so its almost plausible.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
If you read the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), you would have noticed the line in the beginning which states that "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I'm not money hungry, but I do detest spam.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I would like to know how much demand exists in the field of law for a person with a skill set and background comparable to my own. Can the current market for lawyers who possess a deep technical background offset the cost of three years of law school, especially in comparison to what I would be making if I stayed with technology consulting?
Judging from the sheer number of issues surrounding technology and the law raised in this forum, it seems that the open source/technology community could certainly benefit from more advocates with roots in technology. I'm just deciding whether it's worth it to make the move myself...
The author has since removed any reference to the GPL in his latest releases, and is now using a proprietary license.
I would like to take the GPL'd version of the code which he previously released and use it as a base for a continued open source project, but I'm not sure that I can legally do that if the author objects- after all, I'll be using his code to "compete" with his own commercial "fork" of the project.
Can I fork his code to start my own project?
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
I am not a lawyer...
Anyway. vicarious liability requires that you BENEFIT from the infringment and that you can STOP the infringing activity. Contributory liability requires that you intentionally AID and ABET an infringing activity.
There doesn't appear to be contributory or vicarious liability for DMCA violations as far as I can tell.
If they don't draw the line somewhere, the RIAA could sue the power companies that provide electricity to Napster users...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Posting the source to "cp" could expose one to liability then too, as it is capable of infrining activity. Also, I THINK contributory liability requires that it KNOWINGLY be INTENDED to further infringement, unlike vicarious liability. Also, a DMCA violation is NOT a copyright infringement. That is why fair use is not (seen as) a defense. But one might escape the theories of contributory and vicarious liability. Or maybe not. Those theories were added by court precendent to copyright, they could similarly be added to the DMCA.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The title of this interview reminds me of The Onion series, "Ask A," in which a gut shot cop and Navy Seal answer reader questions. Should we expect the same sort of thing from "Ask a Lawyer" on Slashdot?
The middle mind speaks!
If I write free software in my spare time but my employer finds out about it and disapproves, what can they do about it? Would using e-mail for the project constitute some kind of violation of corporate resources? Could I be fired? Would I have to stop working on it even if it's during my own time? Could I be sued?
Mr Ravicher,
What is your opinion on the DeCSS court case involving 2600 Magazine and the MPAA? Do you think that DeCSS itself is legal? Should linking be legal?
------------
------------
Tonight on Fox: Deadliest Executions Part XVII
Ask That Hindenburg Announcer Guy
Ask A Wiccan
Ask The Voice-Over From The Dukes of Hazzard
Ask an Attorney About Open Source Licensing
Let's say I have written a piece of software and GPLed it. A few months after I release the program into the public, BigCorp inc. starts selling a program that performs a similar function. I am reasonably sure that they have incorporated some of my code (perhaps I recognize some bug or unusual quirk or whatever), and I am offended at the IP violation, but I can't very well email BigCorp and ask to see their source code to make sure none of my code is in there.
So, what recourse would I have? Threats of legal action would carry little weight from most individual programmers I know, and threatening bad press seems the only alternative.
"How do I type "for i in *.dvi do xdvi $i done" in a GUI?"
:eof
What advice would you give to people who are interested in technology and intellectual property and who are considering a cereer in law? What is the best way to start such a career? Can someone make an impact on the future of IP rights by pursuing a legal career? And do you consider it a viable career path?
Do you think there will ever be a Open Source Development Legal Guide similar to this one by Nolo?
BTW, what do you think of Nolo?
~~ What's stopping you?
I would say that trademarks are meant exactly for the purpose you state in the last paragraph.
Just because it is opensource doesn't make it any different than the rest of the world. I can't make a company "Tosheba" making a product named "50HD70" looking almost exactly like Toshiba's 50HX70, and expect not to have problems. If they were products who DID NOT compete no problem; but the way you put it, you are riding the coat-tails of the commercial product introducing ambiguity. Why should you want to name a competeing product the same as the commercial, except for to get the name recognition from the commercial product, which again is what trademarks are for.
If the opensource product has merits it should be able to stand on it's own, and as you say "compete" with the commercial product; hence it should not even have to have a name close to the commercial products. Look Gimp & Photoshop, the names aren't anywhere near the same, but they tend to compete against each other, and Gimp did it on it's own without having to bootstrap itself up from the name recognition of someone elses trademark.
Spelling & grammar checker off because I don't care
If you put it in the public domain, anybody can do anything they want to it: incorporate it into a product, publish it in a book, read it on the street corner, etc. Effectively, they own it as much as you do. So nobody can sue anybody (and win!) for doing anything to it, because everybody owns it.
37. For instance, under the first sale doctrine, an owner of a piece of software can transfer her program to whomever and for whatever she desires. The use of a license prevents this doctrine from applying, which allows computer programming firms to price-discriminate between customer characteristics. If Microsoft wants to give Windows software to public schools at a cost blow the production cost and the transaction consummates a sale, the first sale doctrine would apply, and the school could resell the programs at a higher price to a corporation, retaining the difference. This would cause Microsoft to charge all customers one price, either by lowering its price, forcing it to run at a loss, or raising its price, thus making the program unavailable to schools and other meagerly funded organizations. This result is economically inefficient and would most assuredly be politically unpopular.
I am interested on the implications of the fact of Microsofts monopoly in as it applies to licensing. While it can be argued that the two issues are separate, and one is not relevant to the other, many people look at the practices of Microsoft in this regard and view it with horror and contempt. Are there instances where such licensing practices impose a non-legitimate enforcment of "rights", and in fact constitute improper maintenance of a monopoly? Or do people have these separate issues confused, when they should be treated separately?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
What are the weakest points of the GPL?
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
I'm curious, why would releasing the code in the PD make the author more likely to get litigated? All you need to do is put a disclaimer file in with your code stating you're not responsible, etc, etc (much like what you see in the GPL, Artistic License, BSD, etc, etc). Or, if you're just interesting in releasing your code freely, use a particularly free license (like Artistic) which has this caveat embedded in the licensing agreement.
Unless there is synchronisation between the difference sovereign territories in these issues how does the US or the EEC hope to enforce the issues of copyright and IP in other jurisdictions?
Obviously without the issue going to a court there is no precedence for these issues directly. So I assume parallels from the state of current legislation for music, video and literature will be the basis. But these have not worked well in the past when considered on an international basis. Is there any hope of agreement for a single standard?
"There is magic in the web." - Othello Act 3 Scene 4.
Do you usually end all communications with IAAL, or do you still accidentally append IANAL?
--
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
that is deliciously thick irony, isnt it, that we now have lawyers representing the interests of people who wish to adopt open source methodologies. Its like hiring a corporate trainer to make your employees more productive, spontaneous and creative. And why isnt this article titled "Its Funny. Laugh"???
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives?
Every analogy breaks down if you try to stretch it too far. This is where the GPL-as-virus analogy breaks down. Always keep this in mind: the GPL is not a virus. Like a virus in some ways, yes. But different in others.
In fact, it's probably best not to think of the GPL as applying to software at all. The GPL does not apply to software; it applies to people. It tells people what they can and cannot do. It's about software, of course; it tells people what they can and cannot do with a particular piece of software. As a convenience we talk about GPL'ed software, and know what we mean. But, ultimately, the GPL applies to people, not software.
Now, there's some dispute about whether the GPL is a contract or a unilateral transfer of rights, but assume for the sake of argument it's a contract. (The analysis, for these purposes, is pretty much the same if it's a unilateral transfer of rights, but I find it's easier to think about as a contract.)
In the GPL, the author gives the user permission to use his code. In exchange, the user agrees to a) make the source available, if he makes the binaries available, and b) allow any derivative works to be licensed according to the GPL.
So, the GPL can be thought of as a contract between the author and the user. If several users license the software under the GPL, you can think of several independent (but identical) contracts existing, one for each user.
Now, keep in mind that the parties in a contract are not interchangeable. Suppose I contract a roofer to do roofing work on my house, in exchange for which I will pay him a certain amount of money. Suppose instead, I do roofing work on the roofer's house, and he pays me money--neither of us have fulfilled the terms of our contract. Likewise, the author and the user are not interchangeable in the GPL, and the author is under no obligation to release derivatives of his own work under the GPL.
Similarly, the author can release his GPL'ed code under a non-GPL license to, say, Microsoft, and then Microsoft can do with it whatever is permitted by that particular non-GPL license--distribute binaries without source, or create non-GPL'ed derivative works, if it's permitted by the non-GPL license. This follows easily as long as you keep in mind that a) the GPL applies to people, not software, and b) the parties in the GPL are not interchangeable. The user cannot license the software to Microsoft under a non-GPL license, of course, because that is prohibited by the GPL. But the author's obligations under the GPL are not the same as the user's obligations--the two parties to a contract are not interchangeable--and distributing the software under a non-GPL license is not prohibited to the author.
That's not to say there couldn't be a contract which does prevent the author from distributing his software under any license other than that particular one. But the GPL is not that license.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Grr, somehow missed this AC comment when I was reading the responses before. He says what I was trying to, only more quickly and clearly. Downmod parent as redundant.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Have you yourself seen or heard from the FSF about it?
"just connect this to..."
BZZT.
Liberty.
No, they don't have to (as others have already stated). The company can release and maintain an inferior open-source version of their proprietary product, without infecting the proprietary version in any way. Infection of the proprietary version can occur if the company is foolish enough to incorporate code that someone else holds the copyright to. To avoid that, all the company has to do is to declare "we won't accept any patches into either of our two versions unless the author of the patch signs this-here legal form", either a form to place the patch in public domain or to transfer the copyright to the company.
[suppose the open source version] has tons of build problems and explosive bugs ... Then what?
Bah. Then programmers with a clue (PWAC) ask for the source code for the open-source version; fix the bugs, send in their patches with a "these patches are Public Domain*" notice; and if the patches are not incorporated into the next release of the open-source version, and all other polite courses of action have been exhausted, the PWAC can always fork the code and maintain their own version under that same open-source license. (Yes, it's an option, this is discussed in someone else's comment thread.)
*see, then you can still use them in the forked version if need be, which you couldn't do if you signed them over to the company and the company decided not to stick them in the open-source version.
This comment is GPL-independent, which is fortunate, because I can't figure out what your last three sentences mean.
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
The GPL is only granting rights to others, it does not sign away any rights of yours.
Once somebody else adds something to it, it becomes a join work.
Only those individuals who have some claim to the copyright on the source can sue over the GPL.
Specifically, I'm concerned about the images and sounds that are included with a game I'm working on.
Does the GPL "contaminate" these other files that are included? If so, how do "source" and "binary" distribution apply to images and sounds.
Thanks,
K45
This signature has eleven vowels.
We have several licensing schemes available for the Open Source enthusiast, all dependant upon one's definition of 'Open Source'. Would you care to comment on each of these licenses, and their various pro's and con's?
Off the top of my head: GPL, QT Open Source, Public Domain, BSD.. most likely others.
And so it goes.
The GPL does not state any jurisdiction, or courts, to decide claims according to itself. This is not an accident, but a result of RMS's philosophy. In fact, as Pythonistas may know, the FSF claims that citing a local law for your license makes it GPL-incompatible. I, personally, have yet to see an agreement with no specified jurisdiction.
Are there no problems with the validity of such a license? Or is there a deep crevice between licenses and agreements?
Thanks for the insightful response. In retrospect, I should have been more careful, separating GNU/GPL and Open Source, but in the eyes of myself and many other programmers I know, the lines between them are blurred somewhat.
I haven't been able to figure out which parts of the GPL Open Source folks find objectional, and you've offered some insight there. I lean more towards the purist side myself, having read Mr. Stallman's work for several years, and currently working on FSF projects.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
- street cred
- humanity
- code review
- inspiration
- bug squashing
I was wondering what could inspire a lawyer to believe in these sentiments enough to become involved with open source software.Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Knowing the legal and political systems surrounding intellectual property as you do, what do you think the chances are that money (specifically, lobbying from organizations like Microsoft or the RIAA) will overpower Open Source by creating more and more insidious forms of copyright protection and law, possibly even to the point that Open Source becomes illegal because it "threatens" the closed-source business model?
This seems to be one of the current trends in intellectual property law. Do you think it will continue?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Sounds like you're asking specific advice rather than a general law question, so no lawyer is going to answer you over the internet. As a non-lawyer, I'll answer you: If you hold the copyright, you can license as many ways as you please. However, contributions people send back for the GPL version might have copyright owners other than you, so you might not automatically be able to include them in the crippled version.
Sign the code over to the FSF, whom you can rely on to be more zealous about suing violators than any of your development team ever will be.
The FSF's Why We Must Fight UCITA article seems to say that UCITA invalidates free-software disclaimers. Is this true? Why or why not?
To what extent can this premise co-exist with the Open Licensing ideal? What legal framework can foster income from individual intellectual craftsmanship, and simultaneously provide for community-enriching efforts?
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Are proprietary commercial licenses valid in the sense that their wording implies?
The second line of Microsoft's EULA states, "The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold." This indicates that the license does not fall under the copyright license section of U.S. Copyright Law, as the GPL does. Is that statement from the Microsoft EULA valid? Can such a license legally strip the end user of rights granted by the Federal government?
The FTC is grappling with the question of validity. I've read part of the transcript from their conference last October, when they asked several representatives from the software industry to justify their licenses. I have not heard anything since. How could an FTC decision, either way, affect both proprietary and open source licenses?
Okay, some unknown hacker creates his/her foo application and releases the source under GPL. Something occurs that leads him/her to suspect that the foo source has been incorporated into a commercial product that isn't following the terms of the GPL with regards to rereleasing the source. Furthermore, the things that lead him/her to suspect this aren't basic paranoia -- someone with a conscience and access to the suspect source has leaked information about it or whatnot. Or maybe something else -- point is, there is a case that could be made.
From a PRACTICAL standpoint, what sort of things would this unknown hacker have to do to make their case? Would it be possible from a practical point of view under (eg) the United States legal system for this unknown hacker to take the company to court? What sorts of costs would he/she incur? What sort of time-frame would it take to achieve resolution? What sorts of potential rewards or compensation could he/she expect? Are there any precedents that are analogous to this situation?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
If an author releases source code under the GPL, what copyright rights do they retain? I'm especially interested in how an author can control how some software is used, or by whom, which doesn't seem to be covered in the GPL, AFAIK.
1) I have to explicitly state that the source is in the public domain, otherwise it is copyrighted by default,
2) anybody else adding to or modifying the source would have to state that their mods are in the public domain (for the same reason),
3) if a person adding to or modifying the source wants to copyright their mods, they'd have to specify the extent of their changes or their copyright might be invalid, unless they substantially changed the whole thing.
If one intends for a work to be freely editable, it seems as though the only thing you give up by putting it in the public domain is some legal basis to sue. For example if somebody takes my public domain work and slaps their name and copyright notice on it, I may not have a good way to stop them although their copyright is invalid.
Is this correct? Any comments?
What changes if any would you make to the GPL to help support it's goals?
But my question is what if you take some GPLed code with no patented code in it, and you add YOUR patented code to it. Then, you sell it and tell your recipients the only way they can execute the code is to never release it. They could choose to get the code and never execute it, and in that case they could continue to release it, so everything's ok. It's only if they want to execute your patented code do they run into a problem.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
1. You take a GPLed product, and extend it. You add some patented code into it.
2. You sell it to someone, and you give them the source code as the GPL requires.
3. However, since the GPL doesn't cover the execution of the code, you tell them that the only way they can get a license to execute the patented code is by never releasing the source or binaries to anyone else.
4. And anyone else who got the code downstream would have the right to have the source code, but not the right to execute it since that would be a patent violation.
Does this mean that a company can use patents to "close" GPLed code?
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
I'm curious - how much code do you have to incorporate before it is subject to licenses? Obviously, copying int c; from a GPL'd program shouldn't count, and a feature to filter email should count, but where do we draw the line? Sorting algorithms? Constructor functions? How about an entire class with a few methods? What if a programmer creates a new class from scratch, but uses the same internal variable names? To enforce a policy like the GPL, we need to know how to differentiate between copying somebody else's code, and using the same algorithm (maybe with different variable names). Can a big company look at the source code from GPL'd software and tackle the problem in the same way but altered slightly for the particular situation?
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Do you think there is something wrong with our legal system that in order to release software in a public manner that does not result in it being then used for coporate profit you need a licensing agreement (no is an ok answer)? If so, what specifically? Is it law based, or a 'litigation crazed' atmosphere in the US?
It seems to me that the internet and file sharing technologies are the beginning of the end for intellectual property laws. The global nature of the internet makes it impractical to police. The only way to truly enforces IP laws would be for several Big Brother-type governments to get together and agree to take draconian measures reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. Do you foresee a time when governments might be willing to take such measures? Do you think the world's citizens would go along with such Big Brother tactics? I, for one, would not.
I like the idea of open source but wonder how reliable the various open license models are. I'm concerned someone could release a program with an open license, then change their mind about its value, and start legally pursuing end users with the claim they never intended to release the program freely. Alternatively, an open license statement could get slapped on proprietary software in an attempt to avoid end-user liability for piracy. Are open source licenses legally robust enough to withstand these kinds of potential misuses?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Is GPL a contract or some kind of unilateral grant of some rights.
My father is a caricaturist and has just drawed Linus Torvalds. He wanted to release it to all the linux-lovers worldwide so they could print it and have a laugh. The only reason why he didn't release it is because he was afraid that GPL could not be applicated on drawings... Do you know what the solution is in this case and if GPL can be used for drawings?
When I bought my new computer, I had Windows, Internet Explorer, and Office pre-installed (for free)
Don't be fooled that that was a free product. The OEM you bought it from undoubtedly paid M$ the licensing fee, and then passed it down to you in the form of a Bill G tax
I don't understand the reasons behind the company RedHat
Two words: Support Service
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives? There are examples of GPL code that was simultaniously released under a different license, and examples of GPL code that was the basis for derivative works that were not released under the GPL. Please explain how this is legal, under the GPL.
Several Slashdotters have said things like "Naturally, the author is free to do this" but I don't see the "natural" connection. If I release version 1.0 under the GPL, my reading of the GPL is that the "virus" infects all versions of the code, and that if I tried to release version 2.0 under a proprietary license then someone else could sue me because my version 2.0 violated the GPL on version 1.0. Yes, I'm the author and I hold all the rights, but when I release my code under the GPL I give up some of my rights and transfer them to the software's users. Don't the people to whom I gave those rights in version 1.0 retain those rights to all subsequent versions? If not, why not? The only way I can see for anybody, even the original author, to modify GPL code and not release the new source is to not release the new binarys either.
Similarly, I don't understand how I, as author of the code, could possibly release it under the GPL and another license at the same time. Why doesn't the GPL trump the other license? If A can get the source under the GPL and do whatever they want with it, and I sell the same code under another license to B, what prevents B from using the GPL to give the code away to whomever B wants, even though B didn't buy it under the GPL?
The specific example is a company that releases their *NIX version under the GPL but releases a Windows version of the same code under a proprietary license with no source code. Why can't a user of the Windows version sue for the source code, citing the GPL on the *NIX version? Why doesn't the GPL on the *NIX version trump the proprietary license on the Windows version?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I recognize that the user cant claim "I didnt read the licence, I didnt realise I wasnt allowed to sell copies of Excel to people", but in some of the click-thru licences, there are really restrictive terms that I am sure most users dont realise are there/regularly disobey. Are these terms still 100% enforceable?
Some examples:
(From the hotmail terms of service, already discussed here at slashdot)
From the start of your paper:
Suppose I work for a corporation that would like to include some GPL code as a component piece of a larger work. What steps should this company take to ensure that it is complying with the GPL (both legally and in spirit)while at the same time protecting its interests?
I've written software for several clients under a works-for-hire basis. I tend to reuse a personal library of base level components for each new project, sometimes modifying them to a greater or lesser degree. In general, does this practice violate the typical pile of legalese that constitutes works-for-hire or contract employment? If I wanted to contribute to an open source project, would it be legally very risky to use those same components? Even if they were substantially modified? Is there anything I can do to protect my ownership of my components, which I consider sort of like tools of the trade? Specifically, is there anything that I would have a ghost of a chance of getting a client to agree to?
-cbare
You can still offer to send your product with a cd-rom for a fee.. or still better, offer a some support for the product for a fee once again.
There are many others ways to make money from your program. If it become popular, you'll be at the best spot to charge for support.
good luck
Many of the legal issues we see constantly are a big corporation going after a small, non-profit open source project. The open source project has not enough money and other resources to properly defend itself.
What would be the best way for people who can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves? What laws should they be most familiar with?
Hmm... I can just see the nag screen.
"This version of the software is crippled, restricted by license, and the source is unavailable. To get the freely redistributable full version, send $5."
I'm sure that single $5 sale will be very satisfying before nobody ever touches the crippled version again.
OTOH, depending on the type of game, you can GPL the engine and sell the data.
--
Just because they claim the document is GPL'd doesn't make this an open source legal issue.
Incidentally, I don't think the GPL (which is quite clearly a compiled computer program license) can apply to such a document.
--
It specifies conditions which are not appropriate to non-programs, such as requirements to distribute the source.
Applying it to a legal document is like applying a car warranty to a candy bar. Even if both sides agree to it, it doesn't make any damn sense, and won't mean a thing in court.
--
A common justification for choosing an open source license, and putting up with all the license-compatibility issues, over simply releasing the code into the public domain is fear of litigation. Do you believe that the creator of public domain software (perfection disclaimed, use at own risk) is at any greater legal risk than the creator of open-source licensed software in the case of costly software failure? (I'm especially interested in any relevant precedent you are aware of)
--
We made an MP3 jukebox to use in public places. The software I created uses a lot of GPL'ed code.
Does it need to be GPL?
Am I distributing the software when I put my machine for anyone to use on a public palce?
And what if I sell the jukebox?
Do I need to make my source code avaiable?
So then basically if I came up with something that is both a small idea and has huge implications, like for example, the bwt, then the only was I could protect this is by patenting it. Making the GPL/OpenSource ideals redundant for most new ideas.
Well, this applies to soo much in data compression. eg. BWT, algorithmic encoding etc. Most code like that could be coded in ASM without too much pain, Though it is small enough that compared to a 500 KLOC program it would be very hard to accuse somebody of stealing your code. Though I think the point may be that the GPL is not the right place to try to protect new ideas. People could read any GPL code and rewrite a similar thing and be fine, the only problem here is that there are only so many ways to code a fast BWT or do algo coding using current ASMs. So even if they didn't copy you their code would look extremely similar, so much so that you could not tell if they copied or wrote from scratch.
Recently I was playing around with MMX/SSE assembly code. It struck me that at the level of MMX coding, there were only a few ways to write a bit of code to perform well. So, due to the limited number of ways that MMX code can be written, for example, lets say that there is only one really nice way to write a function in MMX/SSE, all the others are much slower because they induce wait states etc. Following the example along, if I write this MMX code and GPL it like a good little boy, then any company can take it and use it in their non GPL code and claim that they wrote the same code because there is only one way to write that function "correctly". So it would seem (to my logic) that code like this is immune to the GPL. Or that the GPL gives no protection to my work in this case.
What would be the recourse of the FSF or the individual developer of a piece of GPL'ed software if "Evil Company X" were to set up shop having a subsidiary marketing a derivative work in a jurisdiction which did not recognize the GPL?
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
I am employed at a US national lab, involved in a scientific programming project for which we make the source code publicly available. We have an apparent difficulty with incorporating GPL'd code into this project. The problem is that code (or scientific papers, etc.) produced by the US government is, by statute, not subject to copyright. Government-produced code is just plain open. This means that the copyright hook the GPL uses to require subsequent copiers to disclose their source code does not apply. We cannot use licensing features to "bind our successors", as they say, in the way that the GPL would like us to. What are the implications of this for incorporating GPL'd code into our project? Can we do it at all?
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
-
Later, I make some improvements to the code I have reused at work, and add them back into the open-source version.
-
Later, I make some improvements to the open-source version (on my own time, not using any company-owned resources), and add them to the code I have reused at work.
My guess is that only in case 1, the company could claim ownership of the new, improved version of the open-source code. However, even in case 2, I can imagine a scenario in which the company tries to claim ownership of my code by arguing that case 1 is what really occurred. How would a case like this be decided in court?