Slashdot Mirror
Moglen On Enforcing The GPL
jdavidb writes: "The GNU Project has a new essay today by Eben Moglen, general legal counsel for GNU, about enforcing the GPL. People ranting about the GPL not holding up in court should read this. Very interesting, but I felt that this paragraph looked bad: 'In such situations we work with organizations to establish GPL-compliance programs within their enterprises, led by senior managers who report to us, and directly to their enterprises' managing boards, regularly.' I'm all for the GPL, but this sounds suspiciously like an Software Publishers' Association audit. On the other hand, circumstances of something like this would be completely different, i.e., illegally taking copyright privileges over software you didn't write, as opposed to illegally copying software." Actually, I also think they sound alike in certain ways, but that it makes sense -- since both are about unauthorized reproduction of software. I like the FSF's terms a lot more. Update: 09/18 19:53 PM GMT by T : As Dr. Nonsense points out, davidb "probably meant the dreaded audits by the Business Software Alliance," rather than the SPA.
The SPA audits software used internally in an organization. The FSF audits software that is incorporated into derived works that the organization distributes and charges license fees for as if it were their own. It seems the former is a lot easier to do by accident than the latter.
If the FSF were making deals that required organizations to only use free software internally, then you could draw comparisons with the SPA.
Illegally copying software is a run-of-the-mill copyright violation. However, Illegally asserting a copyright that isn't yours exposes the violator to liability against the alleged infringer, as well as sanctions by the court and the Copyright Office. A much more serious offense.
..or give me death.
The FSF would love to hang you out to dry as fast as Microsoft will for license violation.
Keep your code FREE! Use the BSDL, the MIT license, or something that doesn't care if your code goes where it may be required.
After all, if the idea of this 'Free' is to promote the spread of information (after all, software is speech) than we should really be free.
No one is forced to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL software. Even if I refuse to accept the GPL, I can still legally use gcc (or linux) so long as I obey traditional copyright law (as I would have to if gcc had no license at all). If I want more rights than that (such as the right to make copies without the authors explicit permission, or the right to produce a derivate work), then the GPL comes into play by setting the conditions I must meet in order to do that.
If you had, you wouldn't be comparing the FSF to either of those. The comparison is weak because the FSF only looks at software development firms, whereas the SPA/BSA target their users/customers.
I do not have a signature
Without people like the SPA (Software Publishers Association) and the GNU group then coporations that should do the right thing, wouldn't due to $$$. Money makes busines decisions. The SPA makes it harder for corporations to use pirated software. Where the GNU group (I am not sure what the proper term of the GNU people are, so do not flame me on calling them the GNU group) is there to make sure that the software that was put out under the GPL/LGPL license stays that way. If not, too many corporations would steal the code and release it as theirs (without adhering to the license).
I am all for the GNU group and what they do. Open up the source code so we can fix the bugs. Make it harder for Virus writers/hackers/script kiddies to do they stuff.
Scott
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net
It seems that a major concern of the GPL is that if you just USE a program, you do not have to accept the terms of the GPL. By refusing to accept the terms of the GPL, you are also refusing not to hold the authors of the software liable for any failures, leaving the authors open to potential lawsuit.
Solution? Maybe a particular license, in the same fashion as the closed source houses do, disclaiming liability in the event of failure, which must be accepted before the user may begin using the program. This would be in addition to the GPL, which also does the same thing.
Of course, I may be talking about a non-issue, but this seemed like as good a time as any to ask the question.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
The question I would like to ask is to any lawyers or wannabe lawyers out there. If you were in a position to defend a company against a GPL copyright infringment, how would you go about attacking the GPL?
I thought this information might be helpful so some load balancing can be done.
While some people may be scared of the FSF, and while I do not agree with all of their views. (Sometimes with questionable methods/reasoning.) It's nice to know that they're out the protecting the interest of the community.
I don't think people realize how important it is that the FSF does this with the corporate world. Not only does this keep abuse of the community's gifts from happening, but it also makes corporate lawyers all warm and fuzzy because they can tell their bosses that they're all legal.
This service is something that's very important to the community's continued success. Don't underestimate it...
This article reminds me of a question I've had for a long while now. What does the GPL take as the definition of "distributing" source code?
The extreme cases are obvious: I assume if I package and sell a product based on GPL code, that would be construed as "distribution." But if I make mods to a GPL project and use it personally, that's *not* distribution.
So here come the gray areas: what if my company makes experimental mods to a GPL program and puts the result on an NFS server for others in the office to use? Is that considered "distribution"? What if that same fileserver is also available to remote offices in my company? What if the code is made available to subcontractors?
Eben claims that users of GPL'ed code need
do "nothing" in order for the license
to apply.
I just read an article in a law review newsletter
on the GPL that disagrees with him, and lists
several conditions the author believes
someone would have to have taken in order to
get a court to agree that he agreed to a license.
The author continues, and I think that Eben would agree, that under such circumstances, the GPL
and its provisions are null and void - the case
becomes a simple matter of copyright infringement.
Thus, the "license breaker" could not be
forced to release their own source code.
The article is not online unfortunately,
else I would have posted it here.
Knowledge doesn't want to be free -- knowledge has no desires of any kind. It is certain people who want knowledge to be free. I'm one of those people; where I differ from the GPL is in my definition of "freedom".
Freedom is a lack of obligation; the GPL does not define "freedom", it forces obligations on people, and uses the very Copyright they despise as a tool for control. Mod me down if you will, but I have just as much right to my opinion as they do to theirs.
I have respect for Mr. Stallman's goals, but not his tactics. He and I share many beliefs when it comes to freedom -- on the issue of GPL, though, I beg to differ.
In many ways, GPL's adherents remind me of an obnoxious slogan I once saw on a hat: "If you love something, set it free; if it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it." Sorry, RMS, I just don't hold with that kind of thinking.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
All about me
The essay says that trying to defy the GPL will only harm the company doing so. True, but will that stop them from doing it?
Imagine company X, project Y and programmer Z. Company X want's to include some ingenious code from project Y made by Z. The problem is that Y is protected by the GPL thus forcing company X to publish their program under the GPL or any compliant license. Company X is small and needs all the money it can get, the GPL won't insure profit so they have to abandon their project. Had the program or parts of it been published under the LGPL this would not been a problem. Fair should be fair, the company X has got one option. They could ask Z to re-publish Y as a whole or partially under the LGPL, this however requires an unnessecary amount of work.
I would like to see future GPL's as a fusion between the LGPL and the GPL making it possible for makers of proprietary code to include parts of GPL'd code in their work. (Providing that those parts, or the whole project, are published in source-form.)
(Flamestopper: X, Y, Z - I'm good at the alphabet.)
Look a monkey!
Under copyright law, only the copyright holder may create derivitive works. By publishing under the GPL, the copyright holder conditionally relinquishes this exclusive right, under the restriction that any derivitive work must also be released under the GPL. If you don't abide by this restriction, you don't have permission to release the derivitive work. The GPL may be a more socially responsible and less restrictive application of copyright law than a traditional EULA, but both derive their authority from the same source.
Keeping this in mind, is it really that suprising that the mechanism for enforcing the GPL compliance is very similar to the process used to enforce more restrictive EULA's? Any legal processes can be used for good or evil: the court that issued the Miranda ruling is the same court that came out with Dred Scot decision. Regardless of the application or the outcome, the process of applying the law is the same.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Our little company just got one. We basically performed our own audit. And the odd thing is, they were only concerned with M*soft software. I don't yet know the outcome though the rumor is we reported the deficiency and purchased more licenses... though I don't have my Project license yet...
Yo CM! How ya doin'?
Fuck posting for karma. It got boring, and hell, they modded me down anyway.
I'm gonna get muhself bitchslapped! -1, here I come!
In my opinion, a world with only free GNU software ("A brave GNU world") is, in fact, a better place to be. There is a big difference a Gates world and the Stallman world, and that's where the conrol is.
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote. Stallman does not control my software any more than the next guy. If Stallman goes crazy and decides to destroy all software in the world, even he can't do it. He is also obliged to the GPL and does not own copyright on any code except his own.
In the Gates world, all software copyrights are assigned to a single company (which owns all developers) and that company can decide what to do with it's developers' code.
I, for one, don't want to see some commerical company using my software to make the next version of windows. That's why I release all my code under the GPL. I hope you will as well.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
". . . in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators"
So convincing other people not to use software which continues to be published is enforcement? What are these technicalities? Specifics man, I need the facts!
If someone were able to take GPL'd code proprietary simply due to a 'loophole', this obviously runs 180 degrees against the spirit of the GPL. The FSF is doing its best to see that no one does this.
They aren't perfect, but who is?
No, there's no need to agree to the GPL before incorporating the code into your own work: copyright law forbids you from incorporating and copying the code without permission from the author. The GPL grants you that permission.
If you didn't agree to the GPL (or get permission from the copyright holder in some other way), you're not allowed to make copies. Not because of the GPL itself but because that's how copyright works.
The reason why shrink-wrap licenses are prevalent for more conventional SW is that they take away rights that you would otherwise have (if you didn't agree to the license). The GPL does none of that -- it only grants you rights that you wouldn't normally have. Sigh.
People keep saying the GPL takes away freedom. It doesn't. It guarantees that everyone who comes after you has the same freedoms you had. The only thing it stops you from doing is taking part or all of your information and making it proprietary; that is, not sharing it with anyone for personal gain. This is not extreme. This is not even fair. This is basic decency. I personally think it's awful that a license even needs to be written to convince people of this, but our society doesn't glorify sharing so much as it glorifies the individual accumulation of wealth.
Freedom is a lack of obligation;
That's an interesting definition of freedom. I think of freedom as being more about maximizing the quantity and quality of options available to individuals. The GPL *is* about freedom- what you refuse to see is that it's not just about *your* freedom to be a dick and take someone's free software proprietary, but everyone's freedom to build on other people's accumulated knowledge.
the GPL does not define "freedom", it forces obligations on people, and uses the very Copyright they despise as a tool for control.
This is a rather infantile interpretation of the goals of the GPL. Two points here: 1. in a world without copyright the GPL would be meaningless, so it's consistent to use the copyright system against itself and at the same time clamor for its abolition (incidentally you imply here that all GPLsters believe in the abolition of copyright aaaaand... that's a canard), and secondly, the GPL doesn't use copyright to control information, but to be sure that everyone can use it in any way that doesn't keep others from using it.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
Come on dude, what is this, a Craig Mundie press release? How does Stallman become your "master"? Gates will embrace you then add proprietary extensions to your software so that you become incompatible and must upgrade whether you like it or not and by the way, copy his software and go to jail or at least pay ridiculous BSA fines. Stallman makes sure you have source to all your software and you can modify it for any purpose, and only asks one little thing in return: that you not be a dick and take free information and make it proprietary.
To sum up, only a very selfish person would not see that the GPL creates freedom for everyone by taking away your right to take other people's freedoms away. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose, and there's a good reason for that.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
1) installing modified GPL code on a machine for a customer to evaluate -- RMS has told me that if the customer controls the machine, it is distribution, but if the code modifier controls the machine, it is not.
We ran into this when installing a system for a customer for acceptance testing.
2) Distributing binaries ahead of source (i.e. to subcontractors). RMS has made it clear to me that this is verboten. He sympathized with our plight, but could find no way that the GPL would permit this. OTOH, in practical terms, as long a source was distributed as rapidly as possible, we would likely not face allegations of violation.
We ran into this when sending "the latest, greatest build of code" to subcontractors, or potential customers for evaluation on machines we do not control. Sometimes we'd want to ship an installation CD, or download updates to someone as part of work in progress. This is a technical violation.
3) redistribution within an organization. This is a real grey area -- is the organization in control of the code or the individuals who have access to it? Personally, I have taken the former approach, but have never refused to give mods to GPL code to coworkers, when asked.
You could've hired me.
So much for making informed decisions, lets just be morally superior and force our views on others.
;-)
Yeargh..... You probably haven't really read the GPL or LGPL have you?
These licenses do not force you to use them when starting your own projects or applications.... they only stipulate that if you want to use code from an existing GPL/LGPL project, you must retain the software license. You are free to choose whatever license you want for your own projects.
This is socialism, no matter how you wrap it up in pretty rhetoric.
Double yeargh.... It is not socialism... You can take the GPL or LGPL, retain the copyright of your code/project in your own name, change the copyright at a later date (just not on already published/released code), and even modify the GPL or LGPL to ensure you retain in control (just remove the "or any
later version" from them, and viola!).
While RMS is extreme, and many times arogant and hard to deal with, the one thing you have to realize is that the FSF is not RMS and RMS is not the FSF! There have been many many examples of desent inside the FSF (just take a look at the glibc maintainer's issues with RMS).
If that software were proprietary, rather than published under the GPL, then that small company X wouldn't have access to that code either, or in fact might not even know it existed, much less that it was available. At least having the code available as open-source makes it possible for companies to consider such projects.
The Boy Scouts of America; man, they're nasty when they want to be...
All about me
All true, but most people imagine that people who break the GPL will be in violation of the GPL. This other article (I really wish I could post a link) is making the claim that you would not be held to be in violation of the GPL, just of copyright law. That would still have pretty serious consequences (as others have pointed out), but not those often imagined to be the result by people who adopted the GPL for their code. The reason I was interested in this other article is precisely that many people seem to think that people who violate the GPL will end up having to release the source code to their products in some way. This other author was suggesting that this is not likely to be true, since none of the provisions of the GPL will be held to apply, merely copyright law. Since it may be hard to invoke monetary damages with most GPL'ed code, the consequences under this part of US law may end up being very different from what the code authors intended.
The restriction on decompiling software contained in end user licences would make it illegal to decompile a program to check its simillarity with a GPL'd program. I wonder how much of a problem this is?
From a technical perspective, you can't just do an "ungcc badprogram; diff badprogram.c goodprogram.c", and from a legal perspective, even if you could would this information be admissable in court as it was obtained in violation of the EULA?
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
hypothetical situation:
Company X downloads GPL'd code Y which would be really useful as part of the new commercial product they're writing. Company X uses code Y and locks it into the binary of the program and breaks the GPL, releasing it as closed source payware and not giving any credit either. Hacker Z suspects his GPL'd code was used in the software but can do nothing because company X can use the DMCA to stop anyone from reverse engineering the program.
With this is mind, the only way it seems possible to stop someone from stealing GPL'd code is to watch them AS they write code that may contain it.
Comments, suggestions?
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Not correct: if the FSF is copyright holder, and tells you "We believe that the GPL permits XYZ" then XYZ is permitted, even if a judge's reading of the GPL comes out different. This is because the copyright holder is free to grant extra permissions.
Further, if the FSF says "We believe XYZ is not permitted and we'll fight you in court", you'd better either give in, try to convince them otherwise, or pay $$$ to hire lawyers.
So I could take any public domain software and call it my own without modifying it. Because public domain is the "giving up any rights to the work".
No, public domain is "giving up copyright on the work." The fact of who is the author remains, so any rights which derive solely from that fact remain.
Do you really think that you could take Alice In Wonderland and put your name on it as the author? It's in the public domain, so why not?
Because it would be fraud against those you distributed the books to. In such a business fraud, everyone that's hurt gets to sue you. You're impersonating the author, and that's going to have consequences.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
To be oneself completely free does not mean you can do whatever you want with your sun or your neighbor. To be free means you can do whatever you want to do as long as you don't suppress other people freedom.
That is what the GPL states. It says you can do whatever you want with a piece of code except to limit the freedom of its "relatives". It sounds reasonable to me.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Hacker Z can still argue that he was looking for an infringement of his copyright. Sure, Company X can still threaten him with the DMCA but the GPL violation still stands and still can be enforced separately.
Hacker Z doesn't have to tell anybody that he reverse engineered anything until he talks to his lawyer. His lawyer can then hopefully negotiate the legal thickets. Company X will look like they're taking candy from little kids regardless.
If the purpose of reverse engineering is copyright enforcement then reverse engineer away. It may even be settled immediately. I think a case like that would be more of a weapon against the DMCA itself then against Hacker Z. That would be as good a way any to invalidate at least part of the DMCA.
I am very skeptical that reverse engineering could reveal any but the most boneheaded flavors of copyright infringement. Since stolen GPL/LGPL components start with source, it seems likely that enough source modifications would get made that the binaries wouldn't match up. Using a different compiler with different optimization strategies would of course make the delta greater. (Perhaps reverse-engineering technology has progressed further than I thought since my last experience with it.) I could be wrong, but this doesn't strike me as a fruitful route for uncovering miscreants (though I agree there's a certain evil symmetry to the argument).
I presume that infringement would be more easily proven the old-fashioned way: threaten some poor schmuck employee with misery and destruction, and as a result get a deposition that proves the theft occurred: "...and then they had me download the source and told me to modify it and bind it into the project." In other words, to use a concept much in the press today: enforcement via humint rather than sigint.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
judge: "Very well, I find that permission was given by the author to download and make any use whatsoever of the offered materials, including modifications and creations of derivative works, without any further agreement being needed."
plaintiff: "I object! When my client said 'Free Software' he meant free as in free speech! In other places it is made clear that the software is only offered under the terms of the GPL."
defense: "The meaning of 'free' as applied to a downloadable product is well established as meaning without cost or restriction."
judge: "I agree. The author gave permission for unrestricted use, essentially releasing it into the public domain, by referring to it as 'free' and suggesting that people download it in that sentence. Any other offer of more restrictive license terms is irrelevant."
Think about it. What permissions are implicitly offered by the author, without reference to the GPL? I think that there are a great many circumstances in which a judge can find that GPL'd software has effectively been released into the public domain.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
As a fraud issue, yes, that's true. But that does not satisfy his demand -- I could also republish it just as easily w/o any name attached at all. Or modify it and attach my name to the work, inclusive of the modifications. Tricky then, I suspect, to determine if it was fradulent to let people so assume the authorship. (e.g. Disney can put out "Atlantis" but I seem to have missed the credit given to Plato)
-- 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.
I think the misunderstanding centers on semantics.
If you distribute GPLd material under circumstances disallowed by the GPL, then you would be violating the GPL agreement that you inherently agreed to follow when you redistributed the material.
Under copyright law, the owner of the copyright is able to decide how the material is distributed. The FSF offers you permission to modify and redistribute only if you accept their agreement. If you modify and redistribute under other terms, you have broken the agreement, i.e. violated the GPL.
So, it follows that if you are in violation of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law. The copyright owner may then proceed take you to court since you have violated copyright law by violating the boundaries you accepted by agreement (the GPL).
many people seem to think that people who violate the GPL will end up having to release the source code to their products in some way
No, I would guess that is merely one term under which the FSF will settle out of court. The other is possibly to pay damages or a portion of revenue, although I don't think we've seen this before. If taken to court, the outcome may very well call for monetary damages AND for the developer to cease selling the software -- an outcome that developers would definitely not like to see.
may be hard to invoke monetary damages with most GPL'ed code
I'm sure it would be plenty easy to assign monetary damages to stolen software. You would need to be creative. For example, you could assert that the development of said software would take a certain amount of person-hours. The person-hours would be a fraction of the whole amount of development cost. Perhaps this fraction could be applied to the total potential revenue to compute the monetary damages. If the source weren't of value (for this to apply, it would have to be free to develop the code or it would have to not be worth anything to a potential user), the developer would not have stolen it in the first place.
It may be so easy to assign monetary damage that nobody has thought to fight FSF in court for fear of the consequences if they were to lose.
??? - If you copy out, by hand, a work copyrighted to someone other than yourself, you're infringing. (generally)
A pretty decent number of people, even back in the 18th century when the first modern copyright laws were enacted in Britain and in America could do that.
NB that in the US, copyright does not extend to copying programs to disk, memory, or backup, if the program was legally obtained. EULA's powers come through the doctrine of contracts of adhesion, and not significantly from copyright. That is, the question is whether or not buying a program prior to reading or agreeing to a contract binds you to it regardless of anything further that happens. It's somewhat contested, but unfortunately prevailing practices will guide the courts, so if you _really_ want to eliminate it, don't take advantage of it either.
-- 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.
Hey! And I can think of an equally absurd scenario:
defense: "Your Honor, my client would like to enter a plea of "non guilty" to the charge of shoplifting made by the retail store Best Buy. It seems that although the retailer has given my client permission to enter their establishment and peruse their DVD selection, they were unaware that that the movie "Free Willy" has inadvertantly been made free by its own title. In conclusion, my client cannot possibly be charged for shoplifting as he has not taking anything of value."
judge: "You are correct... case dismissed."
plaintiff: "I object. I put a price tag on the item, thereby assigning a monetary value to the product."
defense: "The meaning of 'free' as applied to a piece of merchandise is well established as meaning without cost..." et cetera, et cetera....
While this sounds like a "Nazi" [SPA] approach to some, to me it sounds like GPL leaders are simply extending their hands to help avoid a potentially costly legal battle. In my opinion, it's a sane, friendly and mature approach. By GPL supporters saying, "Here, let me help you comply and make this work with your business goals..." they are improving the "feel-good" effect of using GPL as well as the cold business aspects of the GPL.
Let's face it, by giving companies a difficult time where the GPL is concerned, we are stiffening the arguments against "free software" that are currently preventing companies from using it.
No, you are wrong. That is the USA's way. The Soviet Union only allows it people to do what they were permitted to do. Nothing else.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
E.g. in the GPL, if one part says that the software was free [...]
I obviously didn't mean that the excerpt was from the GPL. I meant that a page written by the author, linking to the software, said that. It could be a permission in itself, and then there would be plenty of room to argue over the exact permissions given.
The important question isn't the author's intention, but what is a reasonable person's interpretation of the author's words. If the reasonable interpretation at the offer of download is "Do whatever you want with this." not, "You are only offered one copy of this software to be installed and run unaltered on one computer, other permissions are offered under the terms of the GPL." then that's the permission that's been given, regardless of any text files distributed with the software. And it doesn't matter what other terms it is offered under in other places, if the author ever gives blanket permission for any use to everyone, he can't take it back and sue people who took him at his word.
I'm not saying that it's a simple case that all GPL software would be found to be basically in the public domain in any court case. I'm saying that it's not a simple matter, that there are a thousand possible weaknesses in GPL'd software, this is just one example.
As for the examples of MS downloadables in other replies, they are never referred to by the copyright-holder as "free software," though they might say "free download" or "free upgrade." The source code isn't given, and generally they are very careful about stating which license terms apply when they offer a download. The typical free software author is hardly that careful.
Even so, I think it's very debatable whether EULAs are legally binding, and it has to be argued largely on a case-by-case basis.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
Knowledge doesn't want to be free -- knowledge has no desires of any kind.
Stop being so literal. If I said "Water wants to run downhill," would you complain that water doesn't have any desires? It's a quotable way of summarizing a more complex situation.
If it bothers you so much, change "wants" to the more accurate "tends." "Water tends to run downhill," and "Knowledge tends to be free." And since free is a potentially confusing word, perhaps a further tweak, "Knowledge tends to spread out of control." (Not a perfect tweak, but I don't see an improvement right now.)
No one will contest that water tends to run downhill (I hope). Knowledge certainly spreads out of control. If I share with you a secret, say my recipe for cookies, I'd be hard pressed to stop you from sharing that knowledge further. If you've got a good memory, I can't take it away from you, and you are physically able to reproduce it and share it at will. As a race, we've continuously worked to make it easier to share knowledge. Writing. Printing. Photocopying. Faxing. Web pages. Email.
Sure, we've passed laws on copyright and trade secrets to try and restrict the flow of information. But in the absence of such laws I can't really stop you (short of physically detaining you) from spreading knowledge I've given you. Even with the laws, it's quite easy for someone willing to make an unauthorized copy to do so.
We're tried technical measures. Macrovision, copy protections. But ultimately you show the movie, book, or music to a person. A person with a video camera can reproduce the work. For text a person with a pad of paper and a pencil can slowly copy it down. All it takes is one person to acquire a non-technically restricted copy before the it can be widely and easy copied using modern technology.
People like to spread knowledge. It's hard wired into humanity. Knowledge wants to be free because people want to spread it.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
No. Code released under BSD license will always be free. If someone takes that code and makes proprietary software from it then the only thing that's not free is the difference, since anyone could always go back and get the original BSD code freely.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Well, KDE/Qt *wasn't* free in the sense that the debian/fsf people wanted it to be. They chose to vote with their feet, and then the KDE people apparently decided it *was* worth it and GPL'd QT.
bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Yeah, lots of free software comes with this warranty notice prominently displayed. (You even got the wording right). When I see these words I immideately think of Debian -- they put it in motd by default and that's one of the first things I change after I install a new Debian system. Kinda annoying, but neccessary.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
troll shit, when you fucking assholes grow up you'll realize the meaning of the word opinion, even when you disagree with it. Everything I wrote is factually true and in response to the original (off-topic!) message.
for the vast majority of you i was a moderator long before you found the place.
read the guidelines again.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I really hate it when people do that. The above post irritates me not because it criticises GPL, but because it contains NO INFORMATION. Read it carefully. Everything in the post is pure conjecture with a couple of clever frases thrown in just to make it look important. Mr ChaoticCoyote, if you want to criticise anything, I challenge you to provide FACTS and argue your position with logic, not thinly disguised rhetoric designed to entice a knee-jerk reaction. For instance, how does your slogan relate to GPL? How do you justify your last statement? Sigh... Sadly, rhetoric still works better than logic in motivating the croud...
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I've also seen the movie. However, AFAICT, he's not referenced in the credits, which is different from referring to him in the movie itself (which is fictional, and thus not a reputable place to find credit) or in the quote at the beginning.
Not that I mind that they left him out; I don't care. But they aren't compelled to leave him in.
-- 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.
Think of it though, as a solution to the tragedy of the commons problem. If the original version is free, and all successive versions are not, there's comparatively little gain to the community, particularly as things move forwards, and things fork, with no folding of the improvements of the fork back into the original.
GPL attempts to solve this by restricting access to the commons (not use per se, but distribution and modification) to those who are willing to make a comittment to maintain and improve the commons, to their own benefit, and to the benefit of others. It's not perfect, but it seems to ultimately result in a more sustainable output of free software.
-- 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.
Yeah, but because the work is being disseminated, presumably for no charge, that will really significantly lower any possible damage awards. The copyright holder is, after all, seemingly getting along fine without any compensation already... what's he out, exactly?
Nevertheless it is worth something, and if it happened a lot, punative damages to discourage such behavior in general increases in probability.
-- 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.
Why is everyone looking for fanatism in Afganistan when there are plenty of it right over at the free software foundation.
This is a really important question. Were these problems with evidence, problems with fair use exceptions (not really a GPL violation), or problems with jurisdiction?
Perhaps the circumstances indicated that the damages would have been trivial, and hence the prosecution would be pointless, but again, in that case surely the license violation would not have been so problematic?
Actually, if the copyright holders were not willing to co-operate, then the license would not have been enforceable- for example, if the author was deceased and their estate was not willing to become involved.
Enough wild speculation :). I can't really think of any sensible reason which might have made prosecution impossible.
Fixing copyright
It was pure blackmail against folks who, and everyone in Stallman camp knew that, were writing FREE software, just as free as any GNU package.
Blackmail is when you tell someone you're going to reveal something embarassing about them if they don't pay you. Capitalism is when people don't use a product if it does not meet their needs. Now which one do you think the fsf engaged in again?
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
"Since it may be hard to invoke monetary damages with most GPL'ed code, the consequences under this part of US law may end up being very different from what the code authors intended."
It would not be that prohibitively difficult to obtain monetary damages from infringements of free code. First if the code is federally registered prior to the infringement, (and in some cases shortly after infringement) statutory damages are available without having to prove actual damages. I hope all US based programmers who release free code are taking the inexpensive step of registering their code with the Copyright office.
Second, actual damages can be based on profits obtained by the infringer (unjust enrichment) rather than simply lost value by the copyright holder, so if you win and get to audit the infringer, you can still get paid.
A final problem for the infringer is that an injunction might cause him to breach all of his business contracts because he will no longer be able to sell his product. At least by complying with the GPL, the infringer can avoid being sued by all of his customers.
What I'm saying is that much of the rhetoric coming from the GPL camp is just so much pathos. I would respect the arguments of many GPL proponents much more if they were simply a little more intellectually honest.
To say that information that I have released openly to the public can be commandeered by somebody else and somehow no longer be open is blatently dishonest. It's a lie. What I've released to the public will always be available to the public. I've yet to hear a single GPL proponent admit that this is, in fact, true, or else argue cogently against it.
Instead, every time I or someone else points this out, one or more people, just like you, respond by changing the subject.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
But it's the volunteers that make the movement. Without them, the FSF would be nowhere. So, the FSF is the volunteers.
glibc is part of the FSF. And here we have an example of the very desent am talking about.
No, it was blackmail.
Despite the fact that KDE was free software , fsf refused to declare it us such unless every piece of code there ( including Qt over which KDE folks had no say) went GPL.
The point is, it was not about freedom - it was way to handicap KDE against Gnome using GPL.
It seems that perhaps then, many of the GPL proponents you encounter are paraphrasing or misstating the actual situation, which is more as how I described it. The people you accuse of changing the subject are more accurately, I think, trying to rein it back onto track by correcting that error.
I'm certainly _not_ contesting that the original work BSD'd is lost. But I do think that its value is minimal because it does nothing to encourage others to do likewise, and at least in this sector, code doesn't really increase in usefulness or importance with age.
Aside from the people that simply don't like the GPL camp, many of the complaints with the GPL seem to be coming more from people who would benefit from BSD'd or public domained code, rather than those who would be releasing it. The releasors at least get to weigh how likely it is that GPL'd code will be improved upon, with a guaranteed value, against how likely it is that improved BSD'd code will be released openly.
GPL proponents seem to be, perhaps, less trusting, but hell, that's okay too. Not like we have to be pollyannas.
-- 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.
That's a good point. But I would say that he is out all the time and effort that he has donated to a non-profit cause for which he feels strongly. Given the professional could have charged a relatively large sum of money as a consultant, I would say the damages could be quite high.
Again, you seem to be mistaking the public distibution of true facts with the threat of revealing embarassing information unless the victim pays up. The latter is blackmail, and is unrelated to this situation.
I think maybe what you're groping for is that the fsf didn't like what KDE was doing and tried to persuade them to change. They did so by referring to their standard for the freedom of software and identifying the ways in which Qt and KDE were not up to snuff. Product comparison != blackmail, I'm quite sure of it. This is getting dull, Craig.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
No, the copyright holder was expecting compensation in the form of contributed source code being made available. Thus, the damages migh be:
a) fair market value of the source code that was infringed upon, where "fair market value" means how much non-exclusive use/modification/distribution rights COULD have been sold for to someone who didn't want to agree to the GPL (and many examples exist of code which is both GPL and commercially licensed, so a claim that any software released under the GPL has zero worth for licensing the right to not be subject to the GPL is clearly wrong); or
b) the fair market value of the source code that wasn't contributed back as GPLed code; could be based on development costs (which a commercial enterprise is probably tracking), or based on how much the commercial product is being sold for, or even based on how much was being asked or offered to license the source.
I've never interpreted the GPL as meaning that if you didn't comply with its terms you'd be forced to do anything - simply that you would then be subject to the penalties of having infringed on copyright. Saying that the GPL can't force you to do anything is accurate but irrelevant. What the GPL does is offer you an alternative to violating copyright law.
Thinking up broad interpretations of "mere aggregation" shouldn't be too difficult.
Here's how to create a mere aggregation loophole, and here's how to create an operating system loophole.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A long time ago, in a courtroom far, far away, a judge ruled that loading a computer program into memory is making a copy of it ... In a rational world, loading a program into memory (or any other incedental copy, such as installing it on a hard drive) should be considered fair use.
United States copyright law, 17 USC 117(a)(1), permits some incidental copying (such as loading into memory or installing to disk); however, other parts of copyright law are far from rational.
Will I retire or break 10K?