Slashdot Mirror
GPL's Strength
Morty writes "So, why hasn't the GPL been successfully
challenged yet? In this article, Eben Moglen, General Counsel to the FSF, explains that the GPL is in a stronger legal position than most licenses. Most licenses restrict the user from doing what would otherwise be legal. Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software), the GPL is in a stronger position to dictate terms. If the user doesn't accept the terms of the GPL, the default is for copying and redistribution to be forbidden under copyright law. I had never looked at it that way before. . ."
It's also good that it offers the possibility for a developer to apply later versions of the GPL should they so wish.
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Join the Free Software Foundation
This is Moglen's follow-up article referenced in the first one.
I'm sure the FSF people have gone over this a million times (e.g. in gnu.misc.discuss), but here it is, again. The GPL doesn't force you to do anything. It only prohibits you from doing some things. Quoting from the article:
Just like any other software, you cannot redistribute GPL'd software except by certain license provisions. You cannot distribute derivative works of GPL'd software except by certain license provisions.
That is all. When you use Emacs, you aren't forced to do anything. When you sell (or otherwise give) Emacs to someone else, the GPL kicks in. If I download an e-book from somewhere (or buy a CD), I cannot distribute the data as I see fit -- I must follow the license under which I got it. Software is the same. GPL'd software is also no different.
2 dashes and a space, or just 2 dashes?
Not really... Think of the "software as a book" metaphore. You don't need a license to read a book, just as you don't need a license to use software. The author of a book does not give up copyright when they sell a million copies of a book --- you didn't agree to a license, yet you cannot photocopy a book and sell it. Licenses are restrictive measures, above and beyond existing copyright law, put in place to dictate how software can be used and distributed.
The GPL does not restrict or regulate the use of software at all. The only activity the GPL restricts is the conditions under which covered software can be redistributed.
You quoted, "let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software)". Most Open Source licenses don't regulate that activity either. The other activity that is regulated is preservation of the original copyright notice: you can't claim someone else's work as your own. The BSD, Apache, X style licenses say you can't plagiarize but can do anything else you want
You are correct, though, Microsoft's EULAs do restrict use of the software as well as copying, redistribution, reverse engineering and reselling.
The point Professor Moglen was trying to make is that in legal terms the GPL is SIMPLER than such a EULA and is therefore less prone to failure. I would imagine that is largely true of most other Open Source licenses.*
* The MPL/NPL, APSL, IBM's public license and other corporate style Open Source licenses tend to be complicated and fail the simplicity criterion.
Yes, but without agreeing to the GPL, copying the GPL work is an illegal action, since the default under American and European Copyright Law and International Treaty is for all copyrights to be with the author unless otherwise stated.
It's not the GPL restricting your rights, it's copyright law, which is a LAW, not a contract, and thus does not need to be agreed to by signing.
The GPL says (greatly simplified - no doubt 1000 pedants will now jump on me) - "I, the author, will let you copy, and modify my software, provided you make the modified source code for any derived binary work you publish and publically distribute available to everyone.". i.e. agreeing to the GPL gives you more rights to the material, not less.
That's why MS hates the GPL - they can't "take" without "giving back". GPL = Free-as-in-speech, the Free-as-in-beer stuff isn't really true once you assign economic value to "intellectual property" - in fact, you're usually getting an incredibly good deal, being allowed use a wealth of GPL'd I.P. in return for a promise of details of modifications you may one day make to that I.P.
Think about it "I just got the source to SQL server, now MS won't let me change it a bit and resell it as my own without paying them millions of dollars". GPL software is just the same, only the price is not monetary, the price is to agree to "share and share alike".
This is the opposite of a "normal" EULA, which seeks to restrict further the rights of the end user over and above copyright law - and mostly, except in states with UCITA in America and in Ireland in Europe, EULAs are seldom legally enforceable.
You can even modify GPL software to your heart's content within an organisation, without giving the changes back to the author, so long as you don't distribute outside the organisation.
That's an interesting point. Because if a company used GPL'd software, and declined to release the source, they'd have two options:
1) Challenge the GPL in court. If it failed, the best they could hope for is that the code would revert to existing copyright law, which means they can't use it at all, and thus would have to pull that code out of their product.
2) Bow to pressure and conform to the terms of the GPL, which is what the FSF, et al, wanted all along.
A very interesting observation, and one that gets to the heart of the "If you don't like the conditions we attach to our code, write your own" argument. Other people would not normally be able to use GPL'd code at all, under standard copyright law, but for some reason, the GPL seems to lead to more "I should be able to do whatever I want with your code" responses.
First, to clarify a point. It is said that Free Software advocates are against proprietary software and against commercial software. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, Free Software is against neither of these things, but only against the commercial distribution of proprietary software because of the damage it does to the rights of those that receive such software.
It is certainly true that most propriatary licenses take away rights and privileges one might otherwise expect in a commercial transaction. The point that the GPL grants rights forbidden in copyright law is interesting and important in this context.
If I buy a proprietary piece of software for my business, it might come with a EULA that says I have surrendered my right to second sale, or even my very basic and real rights to own property and use it as I see fit for my OWN use. The EULA might claim that I can only use software "X" in very specific ways, it may restrict me from doing things with the software such as modifying it even for my own use, let alone being able to take my modifications and benefit from the intellectual investment I made in software "X". And perhaps I may be making myself open to expensive audits. Proprietary commercial licenses can devalue my intellectual rights as a consumer, and the very integrety of my business.
Interestingly enough, while EULA's tend to interfere with what happens in privately owned software in many ways, Free Software in general, and even the GPL specifically, imposes no restrictions whatsoever with what I do with it in my own proprietary use, whether in my own home or my business.
If I wish to create or modify software for use in my own proprietary business, unlike with commercial proprietary software, I am absolutely free to do so with freely licensed software in any manner I choose. I am secure in both my first ammendment rights to talk about the software I am using and what I am doing if I wish (yes, some commercial proprietary software comes with licenses that claim to strip away such basic 1st ammendment protections) and my very basic 4th ammendment rights to be secure in my own property. In that there is no issue of software freedom in what I do with software personally, there are no terms in licenses like the GPL that either come in effect or hinder me in any way in this regard.
When the GPL does come into play is when I choose to distribute software to others, and particularly commercially. The GPL grants specific rights that permit you as a commercial entity to actually profit from the software you have invested in and then modified. The GPL only says that you must give others the same oppertunity and rights you were given.
Many commercial licenses do not permit you to profit from the software you have purchased in any manner whatsoever. They restrict what you can do with the software in other ways. They reduce the value the investment made in the software. The GPL increases the value of the investment. Prorpiatary licenses, especially when combined with software patents, can interfere with the basic right to own property and be secure in your own possessions or the ability to choose. By restricting what you do with your own property and your ability to purchase from multipe vendors commercial proprietary software is very anti-
capitolistic.
I believe that you are mistaken. This recent post (thanks again, vercingetorix) opened my eyes to the use of Licensing in Software. Basically, the case law in the US is that you have to have a license because copying the software to RAM is violating the author's copyright.
I know it seems crazy, but that's the current US law.
It is the case. The relevant legislation (Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988) was amended in 1995 (IIRC) to specifically cover non-infringing acts wrt software. So basically you don't need a EULA.
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
D00D! RTFA!
The GPL is different from other licenses. The GPL grants rights of redistribution that copyright law does not. Most proprietary licenses restrict your behavior in ways that copyright does not, and hence may be unenforcable. Things like restrictions on reverse engineering, not using the software to promote [insert icky cause X], allowing the licensor to change the terms of the agreement at will and without notification, etc., should all be struck down in court.
In short, the article is claiming that the GPL is on far more stable legal footing than any other license in the proprietary world.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
>The point is that you haven't bought the
>software.
One enter the shop, pay money and get the software in return. Thus one own that copy of the software, just as one own the copy of a book one owns. Perhaps in your country the laws says that when you buy software you don't own it but in most countries there is no such exception for software. Thus when you buy the copy in the shop, you own that copy.
>You do not have the right to use someone elses
>property.
And since you DID buy it in the shop, that copy of thwesoftware is now yours (just as a copy of a book is yours when you have bought it).
> If you are given the right to use someone elses
>property under certain conditions, it is illegal
>to use the property if you ignore those
>conditions.
This is actually the reverse of what applies, since I have bought the copy of the program, what happens with EULAs and such that are proposed AFTER you have bought is that the ones that sold me a copy of the software is now trying to control how *I* use something *I* own, they can't do that, they have to make such agreements BEFORE they sell me something.
>This is true whether you're talking about MS
>Office or GNU Office; the copyright owner, owns
>the product.
He owns each copy of it until it is sold. Copyright does not mean you own each copy of it (if that was the case, you would not own a single book you have at home for example). Copyright does not grant you any ownership at all. It only grant you certain rights according to the copyright laws (or rather, prevent some rights from NON copyright holders). One such rigt is the right to copy the work and distribute/sell such copies. another such right is the right to perform it in public and such. In no way does copyright grant you automatical ownership of each copy produced.
.. is that they somehow imply that all organizations that USE GPL-based software should have to carefully examine the license in counsel with lawyers.
This makes the GPL sound way more complicated than it is.
If an organization does nothing but USE GPL-based software (installing Linux one corporate servers or desktops), they need not bother with the GPL-license at all. They can just rest assured that the GPL-license gives them some rights over most other software, if they should ever decide to modify it.
Compared to Microsofts proprietary licenses. The GPL-license is nothing but added rights. There is no drawback whatsoever with the license itself. Though Microsoft might debate that free software can never be as good as non-free software (I would disagree), or that they might not get good enough support (I still disagree).
Now. The BSD-license grants you even more rights. But that is another story.
Because we often buy copyrighted material, say books, and clearly see the copyright notice on or in the "product", I think we naturally confuse "ownership" with the law, or our perceived "rights".
Copyright has nothing to do with ownership. What you've bought is paper, glue, etc., -- when you bought a book, say.
Someone had the right to make a copy of the information that is in the book, though. The right to copy is not the same as the right to own.
When you download GPL'd s/w, someone has given you the right to "make a copy". That right comes with several restrictions. With conventional, commercial information distribution, one typically must pay for every copy made -- often whether the copy is sold or not.