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. . ."
something you *haven't* signed can't restrict your rights in any way...
That would be like saying with the standard licences (which restrict your copying), that if you haven't signed, you can copy.
Obviously, this doesn't affect illegal actions...
It's a good think to know that it's actually being succesfully enforced, and how micro$oft is once again proven to be wrong.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software)
I don't get this.
Microsoft's EULA lets you use software for which they are the copyright holder. Using it without would be illegal.
Every software licence lets you do things that are otherwise illegal - that's the whole point of buying a license
Imho, the GPL is much stronger in the sense that its more open. Theres hardly any major restrictions in the GPL, and what are in there is only protecting the intrests of the developers and the users.
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
> Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs.
Oh no! The BSA is gonna discover all this *unlicensed* GPL-ware! I'd better get a-patchin' and a-redistributin', the Kopyright Kops are komin'...
Click here if you just like to click on shit.
This is Moglen's follow-up article referenced in the first one.
Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) lets the user do MORE things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software)
I'm waiting for the day M$ includes a clause in the EULA that says anything written with it's office suite is the sole property of M$, to license, redistribute, and charge a lot more than it's worth!
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
> Microsoft's EULA lets you use software for which they are the copyright holder. Using it without would be illegal.
1 /24/131321 3&mode=thread
Looking at your user history you might just be ignorant rather than trolling with this, so:
That depends on where you are, as discussed in the thread on Playstation imports.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/0
In any sane jurisdiction, using software you have already bought does not require additional permission from the copyright holder.
Being English, I'm aware that this may not be the case in the UK.
rant
On the other hand, the GPL gives you something (the right to copy, change, etc.) in exchange for something (play by their rules)... so even if it comes in a box you purchased you're still being given something.
Although, if you decide you won't use any of the additional rights the GPL grants, are you still bound by it if you, say, bought a RedHat package full of GNU software? You're paying to use it, right?
The above is a synopsis of an excellent discussion in Brown Eye Journal... be forewarned, it's a painful read.
Me giving Microsoft money in exchange for a copy of the software gives me the right to do what I like with the copy of their software that I have purchased (within the law). Much of Microsofts EULA (attempts to) restrict what I can do with the software (such as use the software on a non Windows OS).
The GPL on the other hand grants you extra rights. Once you have obtained the software you can do whatever the hell you want with it personally. On top of that you have the extra rights which you otherwise wouldn't, ie the option of distibuting the software, if you are willing to obey a few rules (ie granting the exra rights you have been given to others).
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
There is an ongoing argument about this.
Basically, whenever you get something with a license, you have the option of not accepting the license. If you don't accept the license, then what rights do you get? Well, the logical answer seems to be that you get all the rights you normally would under copyright law and none others. And in US law these rights are all you need to install and use the software, because copyright law doesn't govern application and US copyright law exempts copies necessary for use. (UK law doesn't, though; the copy made into memory will infringe copyright if it's not licensed (this has been upheld), so EULAs AND the GPL are stronger here.) Statements saying 'if you don't accept the license you must return this software' are PART of the license and thus you can refuse to accept them too. (There is no law giving them the right to say that.)
In the case of software there is normally something that tries to stop you getting at the software without accepting the license (a click license in the installer or an 'if you open the box' rule). Some people have tried getting around this (by, for example, getting a young child to accept the license, which is meaningless as a child cannot enter into a legal agreement), but I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court.
The counter argument would be that it is the license, not the software, that is sold; since the software isn't yours the company can dictate what you can do with it. This is highly contoversial and I think is also still untested. (Amongst other things if tested it could lead to software stores being sued for trade descriptions for claiming that they are selling software. "Software Warehouse" would have to become "License Warehouse" etc...)
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.
There is absolutely no difference between the GPL and any other license.. You have to do what it says.. nuff said.
Yes, it's like when you buy a book, or a CD, or anything protected by the copyright law without an explicite license, you can do certain things (like everything under the fair use term), but you can't e.g. copy and redistribute that work. When you buy a protected work, you have some rights provided by the copyright law. With most of software licenses (especially EULA's) you have less rights than under the standard copyright law, while with the GPL you have more rights than under the standard copyright law.
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
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.
> Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation
Yes it does; the decompiled source is a derivative work.
> The [GPL] does not require anyone to accept
> it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect,
> or even experimentally modify GPL'd software.
In the UK it does; you need to get permission to make a copy in memory, or an installed copy on the hard disk. Sounds stupid but it's there.
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.
What is this, stating the fucking obvious week on Slashdot?
First 'use JPEG compression to reduce your bandwidth bills', now a bleedin' GPL primer.
Glad to see they're doing their bit to help the Blackout.
deus does not exist but if he does
Great quote from Moglen's article - further to the point that the GPL hasn't been tested in court yet not because it's weak, but because nobody has had the balls to challenge it...
``Look,'' I say, ``at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?''
Heh heh heh...
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Yeah, I lasted less than an hour with the whole blackout thing... seriously, I cracked and checked /. at about 0:46
sic transit gloria mundi
I don't get this.
Microsoft's EULA lets you use software for which they are the copyright holder. Using it without would be illegal.
Every software licence lets you do things that are otherwise illegal - that's the whole point of buying a license
<IANAL>
Yes, using the software without the EULA would be illegal provided that the EULA exsists and you just ignore it. However, if the EULA did not exist, I do believe you would be able to use the software just as you can read a copyrighted book w/o agreeing to any license, whereas without the GPL you would not be permitted to freely make copies and redistribute code/binaries as you see fit. Holy run-on sentence batman. I think the point the author is trying to make is what would happen if the licenses did not exist, not if Joe Pirate ignores the existance of them.
</IANAL>
(gotta close those tags, we all saw what Jon Katz did the other day in his review of the Scorpion King...)
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.
Why wouldn't use use the google name, instead of the IP? Seems like more people would be willing to trust google, rather than a naked address. Maybe that's been done so much it's passe, and I've just missed it?
To make things even worse, people are trying to discuss something that's been chewed, re-chewed and over-chewed who knows how many times already. Once and for all - GPL is good, it protects people's work and creativity and prevents bustards from steeling ideas.
Couple of hours installing Linux on a friend's PC and/or promoting virtues of GNU/Linux/GPL/Free/Good... would be time spent in a much better way.
This was not meant as a flame or such but feel free to mod to the ground, who cares...The software as a book analogy simply doesn't work. Software and books are used in completely different ways. To make use of a book you just have to pick it up and read it. To make use of software, you have to first copy it to your hard disk and then into the memory of your computer. Here in the UK, both of those acts are illegal under copyright law. The licence gives you permission to perform them in order to run the program. In that sense it is the opposite of restrictive.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Maybe it's because nobody cares.
I mean... the GPL basically does what it's intended to do, even if there are occasional transgressions. And the copyright holders don't have much financial incentive to go to court. And the offenders find it easier to comply or otherwise settle than to fight in court.
All in all, this is a good thing.
Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It for commercially viable products...that is where real money is involved.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
GPL is better than EULAs in a crucial point: Infringment to this license is more difficult to be done unnotice than on EULAs. An infringment to GPL means, roughly, in selling/distributting bin without source code. When you don't respect a EULA it will mean that you do n copies of that, and that is less noticeble.
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Plus, it would be a big PR gaffe for anyone (even Microsoft) to try to "steal" free code and break the GPL.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
One very important point - Using the software is a right that is always granted, whether you choose to accept the GPL or not. So a person can still benefit from using GPLed software, but just cannot modify it and distribute if he does not accept the GPL.
This preserves the original spirit of copyright law, which is to limit only distribution of a work or its derivatives. Unlike MS and many other software companies, the FSF did not join in the software land-grab. MS and others have reinterpreted copyright to include usage terms, and this has been upheld by the courts. Why did this ever happen?
If a company argues that the GPL is not legally binding they are arguing they do NOT have a license to distribute the code.
If they do not have permission they are violating the copyright.
If they are not distributing code, they are not restrained by the GPL, I doubt any court would hear a "take away their copyright because I don't like the GPL" case.
"The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works."
The students aren't copying, distributing, or making derivative works, unless installing it on a pc is considering copying!?! I think MS is taking it too far.
Traditionally you have the right to use anything you own in any way you want. Copyright does not give you any right to restrict what your customers do with what they have purchased. You can buy a book,read it, use it as a paper towel, light a fire with it, or even sell it to someone else. You just cant copy it and distribute copies.
And that's where the copyright holders, the software industry in particular, try to revoke your rights through EULAs by claiming you didnt 'buy' that software, you bought a license to run it, which would thereby allow them to restrict you from doing things you otherwise would have every right to do under copyright law.
If you really believe Microsoft is doing you a favor and allowing you to do something that would be illegal they've really done a good number on you. Except you're right in some places of course, where they and the other industry interests have done a good number on the lawmakers too.
... then Microsoft would openly use GPL code and then challenge the GPL in court. Embrace, extend, crush resistance, lather, rinse, repeat....
it has been challenged. the challenge was successful. see this slashdot article and discussion for details.
in short: the GPL grants you the right to use the software in more ways than the normal copyright grants you. it extends international copyright laws to what stallman et al. call copyleft.
but that still means you have to obey copyright laws: you have to mark your work as derivative, and conform to the license, which in case of the GPL states that you have to make the sourcecode of your work available.
So in the linked slashdot article above, in the case of macosx.forked.net that would have meant that they made package desciptor files (".pmsp" on mac os x, the only form one can modify the package. To my understanding it represents the "preferred form" the GPL talks of) available, as well as noting that the files origin were fink packages, both of which they didn't do 'til today.
so yes, the GPL has been successfully challenged.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
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]
"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. . ."
You've never read the GPL then.
I recommend that everyone who uses GPL software read the GPL. It's not hard. It is a legal document, but it is written in plain and simple language because the authors intended it to be understood (shock! horror!). The section in question is an absolute bloody work of genius. I quote:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
It's so beautiful, I may just cry openly.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Many of us would be embarassed about doing that and wait until we had a real argument.
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.
So, does that apply to CDs as well, since you have to copy the contents to a DAC in order to hear them? Does US law distinguish between a permanent copy and a transient one (such as the copy to RAM)?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
What's the great discovery here? That if something grants more rights than less, it's easier to defend against in court? Well duh!
Next week in Slashdot: Water is wet...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
The GPL does not rely on "clickwrap" acceptance to obtain its binding effect. Instead, it offers you a bundle of rights - rights that you would not have, absent an agreement. If you accept these rights (such as by exercising them with knowledge of the offer), then you've accepted them according to their terms.
One could quibble about users who never access the source (not Slashdot readers, of course). How are they any different than closed-source distributees? Well, those users almost all download or install from someone (mirror, CD, etc.) who clearly IS exercising the extended rights of the GPL (e.g., to freely copy and distribute), so even THOSE users are the beneficiaries of the permissive GPL terms.
On the other hand, this does not mean that closed source licenses are unenforceable. It just means that company trying to enforce a closed source license must prove some "acceptance" by user in order for the user to have gotten something that the user was not already entitled to.
For example, if a physical download is conditioned on clicking an "I Accept" button, then it seems to me that as a result of the affirmative "click," the user gets access to the (closed source) binary that he/she would not otherwise have had.
Basically, the deal is, "I'll give you ACCESS to my closed source binaries if you agree to my very restrictive terms. Click 'OK' if you're amenable to that. Otherwise, go away." Absent the "agreement" the user would not even have ACCESS to the binaries, so (arguably) the user got something of value as a result of clicking "OK".
Bottom line is that there are good arguments for why both the GPL and well-constructed closed source licenses would be upheld in court.
The only rub here is that all of this analysis is pretty technical (the pejorative is "Hohfeldian"), and courts often like to mix things up with "policy." (Wesley Hohfeld was a Yale Law professor from the late 1800's who was often faulted during the last century for being TOO logical.) Then too, there are often little factual wrinkles that get in the way of a neat analysis.
So in any real case, expect the waters to be considerably more murky than portrayed on these pages.
Yeah, it's ridiculous. If Einstein had posted relativity to slashdot it would receive +26 Interesting, +28 Insightful, +10 Underrated, -2 Troll, -64 Offtopic, for a grand total of -1.
Knowledge does not have an expiration date. I, for one, am pleased that this article was published as a /. item. I hadn't read this document, because I didn't know it existed. I wasn't actively looking for this information, but now that I have read it, I'm happy I did. This article has given me motivation to dig further, and such an active response is always a Good Thing(tm).
assert(expired(knowledge));
With an actual front-page article like this one, perhaps I can stop having to make this exact point [GPL gives rights, normal EULA takes away rights] every time someone demonstrates belief in the fallacy that the GPL is "just like an EULA", or the related fallacy that "GPL restricts actual use of a product".
Oh wait. I guess that would require people to read the article, now, wouldn't it? <sigh>
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
I know that this isn't quite what you mean, but I think Microsoft's license change for SMB (can't remember the real acronyms here as it's too early) is the biggest challenege to the GPL yet.
I don't believe that is what usually happens if some GPLed stuff winds up in a larger work. There are other options:
1. The GPLed portion can be replaced with non-infringing code.
2. Other consideration can be given to the original copyright holders. ie. relicensing of the affected code in exchange for money.
If by "wiggle out" you mean "get off scot-free and continue to distribute infringing code" then no that won't happen (at least not to FSF owned code.). At a minimum, they will have to put out a non-infringing mandatory upgrade since they didn't have the right to distribute the original code.
Remember, the GPL doesn't get to dictate penalties for copyright violation (although it may suggest them REALLY strongly). Either a judge does that or an accomodation is reached with the copyright holders in arbitration. Moglen is saying arbitration is their usual approach.
Most, if not all, commerical EULAs try to take away or restrict rights that you normally have under the law. Now this is of questionable legality. Normally to give up right there needs to be a signed contract and such. A person can't make you jsut give up your rights by handing you a peice of paper and claiming you agree. So the legality of these EULAs is still being tested.
Now the GPL is different in that it GRANTS you new right you don't normally have under the law. You can't normally modify or redistribute vopyrighted works, which includes software. The GPL allows you to do so, but puts stipulations on your doing it. This is a much stronger legal position. It says we grant you additonal rights with our IP, but only under the following conditions. If you don't find the conditions acceptable that's fine, nothing gained nothing lost.
I'll try an analogy here. I have exclusionary power over my house, as you do over yours, meaning I can decide who is and is not allowed to be here. You do not normally have the right to enter my house under the law, you need my permission to do so. Now I can set conditions on that permission, like you must remove your shoes for example. If you fail to meet those conditions, I can void the permission. I don't need a contract with you or anything. However you do normally under the law have the right to stand on the public sidewalk across from my house and observe it. I can't take that right away from you with out soem legal manuvering, almost certianly involving a contract. I can't tell you "by observing my house you agree to these conditions", as it's a right you already have under the law.
See the difference?
I thought about that too and all I can say is:
SHHHHHH, the RIAA might hear you!
:-)
Oh, yeah, and - making copies of install disks to repair other computers isn't illegal, either. You just have to get rid of them once the malfunctioning computer is up and running. So, they've explicitly made an exception for the 'I have to reinstall windows, but they didn't give me a useable CD' situation. ;)
Wish I could find the link. Oh well. Tried google and it didn't come up immediately. (That's unusual!)
> > Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation
> Yes it does; the decompiled source is a derivative work.
So? A student's notes made while studying a work are also a derivative work.
Copyright law prohibits publishing/selling a derivative work. Fair use permits creating a derivative work for your own use.
Decompiling is not prohibited by copyright law.
In the case of software there is normally something that tries to stop you getting at the software without accepting the license (a click license in the installer or an 'if you open the box' rule). Some people have tried getting around this (by, for example, getting a young child to accept the license, which is meaningless as a child cannot enter into a legal agreement), but I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court.
I'm not sure the software companies would want these things tested in court. If the opening the box created a binding contract they'd be bankrupt within a week, since the ruling would would also give opening envelopes the same status as opening boxs...
The counter argument would be that it is the license, not the software, that is sold; since the software isn't yours the company can dictate what you can do with it. This is highly contoversial and I think is also still untested. (Amongst other things if tested it could lead to software stores being sued for trade descriptions for claiming that they are selling software. "Software Warehouse" would have to become "License Warehouse" etc...)
Another challenge would be DVDs advertised as "Yours to own (forever)"...
>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.
Heck, it applies to ALL media, because a transient derivative work must exist in the electrochemical status of the brain during the understanding process, and it exists in your own memory afterwards..
The GPL on the other hand grants you extra rights. Once you have obtained the software you can do whatever the hell you want with it personally.
With the GPL "personally" also applies to a "person" such as a corporate entity. Whereas many EULA's have to jump through hoops to treat natural people and legal people differently.
sell shares to raise funds. say, $10 a piece.
offer a bounty for whistleblowers (licensees, contractors, coders with options underwater, etc) who can demonstrate uses of GPL'd code in shipping, closed-source products.
conduct BSA-style raids on firms selling closed-source software.
since a proven violation would likely open-source the product, terminate that firm's ability to sell it further, and result in heavy fines (triple damages, plus all the ill-gotten gains) there would be a strong incentive to settle out-of-court.
the settlement funds are fed-back into the organization to offer more bounties, and pay dividends to the share holders, etc.
I realize this would never work (the community would never support it; free software has never been about taking software from others unwilling to give it) but it's fun to dream about it.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
>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.
According to www.copyright.gov (US law):
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or...
The GPL lets you do MORE than any other standard EULA.
Except that the GPL is explicitally not an EULA. It applies only to distribution of the software to a third party.
This preserves the original spirit of copyright law, which is to limit only distribution of a work or its derivatives.
In the case of the US (where the GPL was invented), part of the point of copyright is to encourage distribution and usage.
Unlike MS and many other software companies, the FSF did not join in the software land-grab. MS and others have reinterpreted copyright to include usage terms, and this has been upheld by the courts.
Not just upheld by courts, copyright laws have been rewritten to become partly also "useright".
Yes, they can be sued.
As far as catching them, if they are doing this it will become obvious when thier code has the same bugs as the GPLed version of whatever software they are releasing.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
>If I build upon GPL'd code (modify, enhance or
>give cosmetic changes) and don't publish the the
>resulting code under the GPL, or even make it
>proprietary and sell a binary-only form, wouldn't
>that be a violation of the GPL.
It would be a violation of the GPL if you have agreed to it. If you have not agreed to it, it would be a violation of the copyright laws.
I said it seemed crazy.
It's really not about legal or illegal, which are human made laws or agreements.
What the GPL does, in essence, is to remove human fabricated constraints on our human ability to improve upon what we humans have done.
Another word for this is "advancement"
In opposition of this, it has been expressed that Microsofts anti-competitive monopolistic practices are not only illegal but innovation or advancement suppressive.
Where is the ecology of economy if you do not consider the ability of the whole to move forward? And where might such an blindnesss lead?
Trillion dollar bet that failed to consider south asia including the mostly muslin populated Indonesia. A very large factor in the motivation of the so called 9/11 terrorist (or at least a very good excuse)
So how is the world economic ecology doing Mr. Gates? Got any more laws you want to make up, contrary to our natural human ability to improve what we have? (i.e. anti-gpl junk)
Can the GPL be enforced? If Microsoft or some other company decides to include GPL'ed code into their proprietary software:
1. Who would ever know? It's closed-source.
[If you have an answer to #1, see #2]
2. Who could do something about it? Copyright lawsuits cost an enormous amount of money. Who in the open-source community has this kind of money to go after them? You'd be facing some of the highest priced lawyers in the country
[If you have an answer to #2, see #3]
3. How would you win the lawsuit? Microsoft coders could use the GPL'ed code to learn new techniques, write completely new code so it looks nothing like the original, and then close the source.
"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."
The author doesn't offer any precedents that show that a court is more likely to enforce a license because it is less restrictive than other licenses.
In any case, the real issue for the GPL is the part that affects code that a licensee may add. Since the GPL requires that the source for new code must be distributed even though it was not created by the license holder, it goes well beyond copyright law.
1) The purchase price is payable to the retailer not the publisher so the publisher wouldn't be considered a party to the contract at that level.
2) The publisher tries to insert themselves into the contract with the EULA at the time you install the software. They tell you that if you don't agree with the EULA to return the product to the place you bought it for a refund. This is lame as most stores flat refuse to take back opened software - evebn if you point out that they're legally required to (because you couldn't inspect the goods in store).
3) What is the publisher giving you in exchange for accepting the EULA - nothing apparently as you already bought the software from the retailer. Granting you a right to use something you already bought the right to use is giving you nothing. Not to mention the manufacturers disclaimer of warranties makes it clear the software isnt intended to do anything anyway.
But beyond the technical, I still can't see how copying a program onto a drive and then into memory is any different than me reading a book, translating the printed text on the page into representative thought and then comprehending that thought into a mental image of what the author was trying to convey to me. And god forbid that I remember what I read and write it down for reference.
> (Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988) was amended in 1995 (IIRC)
2 33_en_ 2.htm
. ht m claims "running a computer program or displaying a work on a VDU will usually involve copying and thus require the consent of the copyright owner."
i d=ns999 91933
This?
Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 3233
The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923
Ok, 50C says it is legal to copy or adapt a program if necessary for lawful use by a lawful user. And "a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program."
Which seems circular to me - what defines whether you have a right to use the program if not under a licence, if, by default, you aren't allowed to copy it onto your machine? (And that same set of amendments omits ", otherwise than incidentally in the course of running the program" somewhere else).
Or does that just mean if you haven't stolen the program, and aren't breaking into someone else's machine to use it?
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/morecopy
And how does thus fit into the recent declaration that you do need a licence to copy a game into a PlayStation, so can't legally read a region-protected game disc?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?
> So basically you don't need a EULA.
I'd hope so. But it doesn't seem clear-cut, which is why I said "may". Do you have any references or pointers to precedents?
rant
can be found here
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
The court first argues that the act of logging into a computer or looking at the operator logs can be termed "perceiving" the RAM copy of the software. This may be so, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around this conclusion because of its implications. If it's the RAM copy that you perceive when you run a piece of software-- rather than the copy on the disk-- then is free distribution of software on magnetic disks not prohibited by copyright law, because the information on the disk can't be perceived without being loaded into RAM? If loading a disk into RAM creates a separate copy, then it would seem that the original disk copy can never be "perceived", and is therefore not eligible for copyright protection. My head spins.
The upshot of this opinion almost seems to be that you're not in the wrong if you redistribute unlicensed software on disk without ever loading it, or if you're caught with unlicensed software on an unplugged computer. In other words, you can stash all the Warez you like as long as nobody ever catches me with any "perceivable" copies (ie, turn your computer off before the FBI busts in).
They then argue that the Apple Computer case provides precedent for their argument, as it uses the term "fixation" to refer to a copy in RAM-- even though the spirit of that opinion was to differentiate between "permanent" copies like those on burned onto ROM chips which can be protected by copyright law, and "temporary" copies like the one in RAM. Though on first read the Apple case might seem to be a perfect piece of case law supporting the legality of temporary RAM copies, the 9th circuit instead focuses on the term "temporary fixation" (declining to interpret this as equivalent to "transitory"), though this in fact seems to be the exact use the law itself was designed to protect! If by "transitory copies", the legislators were not referring to RAM copies, then what were they referring to?
All in all, I begin to understand why people have such little confidence in the viability of any decision coming out of the 9th circuit.
PS I posted this to the other thread by accident. Sorry.
Front page for an eight month old essay? Seems like we hashed this over, like, maybe, last August? What's next -- New stable fork, Linux 2.4 kernel? Or maybe perl 5.0 finally out? Maybe gcc 2.8?
.. 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.
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.
As I see it, a book is more like a file that's meant to be used with a given software, instead of software itself. A more correct analogy would be a book written in some unknown language with an enclosed contract offer to give a way to decrypt the content if agreed to. Seller could then claim that they're selling the book (file) and licensing the algorithm (software) as a separate product. Whether or not they could prevent others from distributing the algorighm would depend on a given country's laws as algorithms alone cannot be patented in many countries and could therefore be distributed freely. A binary could be claimed to be a data file to be used with software called "Operating System," though.
One could claim that binary is simply encrypted version of the source code (content scrambling algorithm) and it's meant to be used with [encrypted] data files to obtain access to copyrighted content. Perhaps DMCA could be applied?
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Sure, that is a good idea, get MS in court, have them admit to violating copyright. Really good when lobbying for the impartance of IP.
Of course they'd get off because even if the judiciary rules against MS, they don't have the means to enforce it.
A judge can make any judgement they want, however they lack the tools to really enforce it. A court order doesn't mean anything unless the government will stand behind it and make it happen.
Am blatantly missing something on contract law or what? I'm in Australia, but the general contract principles are still the same.
Why are you guys differentiating things like licence and contract and so forth?
A licence is a type of contract. The EULA and the GPL are types of licences.
??????????????
So, why hasn't the GPL been successfully challenged yet?
Simple: none of the software published under it is worth fighting for.
heyitsme
OK everyone, next time you get ready to say something like "I hate lawyers" think of this guy. Sure some lawyers are scum, but there's a lot of them who do good things that help out good people.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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 understand your point, but IANAL, so are you sure that the "default" would apply? Does copyright law apply to a work published in that manner? (Maybe by using the word "publish", I've answered my own question!) I'm talking about technicalities such as not including the "Copyright" message, etc.?
Simply because I wasn't comparing BSD and GPL. I was comparing Microsoft and the GNU/GPL.
BSD and GPL have been debated to the death. They are both reasonable licenses.
Use GPL if you want to keep all modifications in the open.
Use BSD if you do not care about this, and want to let anyone (including proprietary software developers use your code).
Now. The BSD-license grants you even more rights. But that is another story.
Only to entities selling proprietary software. The vast bulk of companies simply use software. If they wish to do this (including modifying software for internal use) there is little practical difference between the GPL and *BSD.
Does anyone know of intellectual property besides software being distributed under the GPL? For example a book, article, or song?
The power of the GPL is in granting extra rights. Those rights have let software fly far wide and free. Maybe someone has tried getting other intellectual works GPLed in hopes of similiar results?
Enforcing the GPL, I
Eben Moglen*
August 12, 2001
Where the "news" is 8 months old.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
In any sane jurisdiction, using software you have already bought does not require additional permission from the copyright holder.
Commercial software companies contend that, since installing the software typically requires copying it from CD to hard drive, and then running it requires copying it from hard drive to RAM, using software _does_ require additional permission from the copyright holder. In related news, TW-Disney, Inc., announced that, since watching a movie involves making a copy of each frame on the viewer's visual cortex, the entire population of the 1st world is now bound by the EULA contained in a microdot on each CD case, VHS case, movie ticket, or Disney children's book, "By watching this movie or reading this book, you agree never to re-sell this or allow anyone else to view or read it, and you sign all rights to your soul over to TW-Disney, Inc." TW-Disney is filing suit to close all used book stores, libraries, and video rental stores in the world. It refused to say what it plans to do with the souls collected under this EULA, but there is an unconfirmed report that in an upset election, Jehovah, president of Heaven since 4004 BC, has now been replaced by Walt Disney, even though he isn't a resident. Walt Disney is also contesting the recent re-election of Satan as Tyrant of Hell, claiming that demons with pitchforks barred his souls from voting, incinerated ballots in precincts favoring him, and infringed Disney's freedom of speech by holding him head-down in a fiery lake every time he attempted to give his campaign speech. Satan commented, "Hell will be a democracy when you can iceskate on my lava pool."
I agree, in a sane jurisdiction, a sale would be a sale, the copies incidental to normal use of software that was sold shrinkwrapped would be considered implicitly allowed by the sale (that includes hard drive, RAM, and all the backups of the disk image you want to make, as long as you only have one working installation at a time), and the EULA would be ineffective unless agreed to before the sale. So, are there any sane jurisdictions?
But of course we should expect that sort of high quality journalism from a subscription-model place like /.
And further proof as to why I'll never subscribe to this f*cking place: it's the goddam readers who create 99% of the content here, anyway...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
The copyright act covers the actions in question. It specifies damages of $100,000 per infraction for distributing software without the permission of its author. Note that accepting the GPL is the only thing that gives you permission to distribute GPL'ed software -- otherwise, you're covered by the copyright act, and can be sued for $100,000 for each copy that you've distributed.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Ok...
Microsofts new licence says you can't use it with GPLed software...
If GPL is more simple than other copyrights, Maybe some other complicated licences are based on GPL.. and then we can't use that with MS..
If we can say the GPL is more fundimental than other licences, (witch i think it is), we can't even use MS software with MS software.
(I know this post isn't a solution, but it is very close to how I vew the situation)
http://www.haltproject.org
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
a 2.4 kernel with a stable VM?
...just kidding. I love you linux. Don't hate me.
Where!
when!
How!
"It would be a violation of the GPL if you have agreed to it. If you have not agreed to it, it would be a violation of the copyright laws."
For distributing the GPL'd part of the code without a license, yes. For distributing your part of the code, no. Thus the owner of the GPL'd code could sue you for copyright violations but couldn't compel you to release your source code on the basis of copyright law.
This is analogous to what happens with proprietary software. If you sign a EULA, you're typically restricted from reverse engineering the code. If you don't sign it, you're in violation of copyright law, but the owner couldn't compel you to share any developments derived from the reverse engineering on the basis of copyright law.
If I sell you a CD with source to software I wrote, and that software is copyrighted by me, and I provide NO LICENSE, then you cannot redistribute that code, modified or not.
If I provide you the same CD, but with the addition of a GPL license, then you can redistribute modified versions under the terms of the GPL.
The fact that you cannot redistribute the code under ANOTHER license is not going beyond copyright law. The rights you gain under the GPL may be limited (as compared to, say, BSD/Mit), but it is still purely a grant of rights. There are no restrictions in the GPL. All restrictions on your use of my code stem from copyright law, and copyright law alone.
Accepting the GPL is always voluntary. If you use my GPL'd code in your program, then you have violated copyright law unless you accept the GPL, but you're still not required to accept the GPL. You can, instead, plead guilty to copyright violation.
I fail to see how the "strength" which Moglen claims for the GPL is really a strength at all. ALL software licenses grant people the right to do things which are otherwise illegal. So do many other contracts. A lease, for example, grants you the right to live on someone else's property when you would otherwise be guilty of criminal trespass. However, the law invalidates many terms that commonly appear in leases, contracts, and software licenses. For example, the New York State Attorney General has declared license terms that prohibit the publishing of reviews to be "copyright abuse" and hence invalid. (Moglen makes no argument that the GPL's "turning copyright on its head" -- to use Stallman's own words -- is any more valid.) Thus, the main point of Moglen's article, which claims strength for the GPL, is itself weak. Also interesting is the fact that none of the assertions made in the article are supported by legal authorities or even by references. Nor does Moglen address directly any of the many arguments against the validity of the GPL. He merely says, "The GPL is strong because we've successfully threatened people with it!" This is, as I'm sure most people will agree, not much of an argument.... Especially since the FSF chooses its battles carefully and has only threatened small companies which would be unable to afford to defend a lawsuit. In short, Moglen's article is a pep talk with little substance. It would indeed be worthwhile to examine some of the strongest claims against the GPL's validity in light of both statute and case law, but Moglen -- despite his position as a law professor -- doesn't do that here. For this reason, the article is a disappointment.
Under copyright law, you cannot distribute modifications to MY program at all unless I grant you permission to do so. Doesn't matter that you wrote bits of the code, if it's based on my code, it qualifies as a derivative work.
Under the GPL, you can distribute your modifications under the terms of the GPL, even if it is a derived work. That's a big difference. No, you can't distribute a proprietary derivative of my GPL'd code, but you can't distribute a proprietary derivative of my unlicensed-but-copyrighted code either. The GPL may not give you all the rights you wish you had to my code, but it gives you rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
Here's an analogy that may help. Suppose I hate Jar-Jar Binks. (Pretty hard to imagine, eh?:) Suppose I design my own CGI character, who I find less offensive. That does not give me the right to distribute copies of Star Wars with my character substituted in. Sad but true.
I think the only disagreement we have is that I don't believe all of the GPL's restrictions are based on copyright law and I doubt that the GPL is more enforcable than a EULA.
Well, it doesn'treally matter what you believe. The definition of a derivative work does not come from the GPL but from copyright law. Copyright law also specifies that copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original and the derived creators, and therefore distribution permission is required from both. So you look to copyright law to see if you have a derived work. If you do, you need permission from the original author to redistribute, and therefore that author gets to dictate terms. Those terms may be the GPL. If you choose not to follow the terms, then you may not legally redistribute. If you do anyway, then various civil and criminal penalties may apply.
I think the only disagreement we have is that I don't believe all of the GPL's restrictions are based on copyright law
Like what? Certainly the "restriction" against distributing proprietary derivative works stems from copyright law. (And that's not a restriction, it's simply a failure to grant a right you didn't have in the first place.) What other "restrictions" did you have in mind?
I doubt that the GPL is more enforcable than a EULA.
And your reason for this doubt is...?
"And your reason for this doubt is...?"
The absence of any evidence to the contrary.
"So you look to copyright law to see if you have a derived work. If you do, you need permission from the original author to redistribute, and therefore that author gets to dictate terms. Those terms may be the GPL."
Or any other terms. Thus my orginal point that there's nothing special about the GPL.
Gee, and for a brief, shining moment there, I thought you might be more than a troll, despite the trollish nick.
Why do I believe that God is a giant purple carrot with buck teeth and a phony French accent? The absence of any evidence to the contrary.