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. . ."
> 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.
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.
Yet again, another excellent point. I think this was more the point if they released a new revision of the GPL and the previous version had a slight legal hole, it can be plugged up with the newer version with little or no hassle at all.
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
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
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?
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.
something you *haven't* signed can't restrict your rights in any way
Why don't you *read* the article. It demonstrates in plain simple language that your statement is absolutely wrong. You didn't sign any copyright law but it restricts your right to copy anything protected by it. The GPL just says that the copyright holder will not sue your ass if you copy their software as long as you abide by some simple conditions.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
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.
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 exactly what is being said. Legally, you can copy software all you like. You just can't distribute those copies. You can also reverse-engineer it, you can quote from it, you can destroy all copies and sell it as "used". There are all kinds of things you can do if it weren't for that click/shrink-wrap license telling you that by opening that package or clicking that button, you sign away your rights.
> 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.
Has it actually been enforced on a mass scale? you only really hear of the minor disputes about copyright. As for actual violations of the GPL there pritty much rare. I've (personally) not heard of any people getting dragged to court about this.
I think in general that people feel more relaxed with the GPL, after knowing the basics of the license people dont seem to worry about what effects it will have on them. Where as when a new MS EULA comes out every person who understands legal writing reads it in pure terror, in hope that nothing more has been made "illegal" in there eyes.
Just another $0.02 from me
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
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
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.
Given that so many people don't understand how the GPL works - even the comments on this story, where people are going "buh, it's a license, it must work like an EULA" even after it's been blatantly explained to them - it's about time.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
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...>Legally, you can copy software all you like. You just can't distribute those copies.
Actually no. Copyright is about the right to make copies, not distribute it. And all software is by default, copyrighted by the author. Without a license to say you can copy it; you have no rights to make other copies at all, for any purpose.
In fact it has been ruled that even loading software into your computer is an act of copying it into the memory, so you can't run software without a license (legally).
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"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.
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.
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....
Actually, no. Fair use allows you to copy insofar as its necessary to, in order to use the product and to keep it safe (by making back ups, etc.) This is why using a VCR is not illegal - you are copying copyrighted content, but you're doing so in order to use the content you've been given.
Making copies for the purpose of redistributing them is where the courts tend to draw the line, whether it's Honest Bob's DVD Duplication Operation, or 1337 Joe's Napster archive.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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!
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!
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 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?
Welcome to the world of "why all EULAs should be considered legally invalid". Many of us believe this. If you refuse to agree to an EULA, honestly, what can the company do to you? Tell you you don't have the right to make fair use of copyrighted material you have purchased? Apparently, Microsoft and most other off-the-shelf commercial software houses would like us all to believe they have this power.
Unfortunately, the courts would likely agree with them, if it ever came up ... under what I like to call the Don't Rock The Boat doctrine. This basically states that if an industry, society or business model would be sufficiently disrupted by a logical ruling, the illogical status quo (or de facto status quo), regardless of how illogical, must be upheld. (That's an empyrical analysis, of course, not official doctrine.)
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
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 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.
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".
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.
Oh Yeah:
What the World Wants and how to get it
Funny how it doesn't include the wanting of war.
This is an example of "open to improve."
> (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!
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.
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.
No. 17 USC 117 permits copying of software if "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".
I believe this portion of copyright law was passed in response to ridiculous rulings that did find that copying to RAM was infringement.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
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.?
The author doesn't need to. The law is already quite clear on what a licensee is authorized to do under the terms of vanilla copyright. If the license gets nullified, then the defendant no longer has ANY right to create deriviative works.
The only way a defendant can win in this situation is to create a precedent that is deterimental to it's own interests. A precedent nullfying a copyright based on odious licensing would do far more harm to commercial developers than to the FSF.
Also, "well beyond copyright law" is not relevant.
Licenses are contracts. If you don't like the terms, then you don't have to agree. The "viral" effect is merely what constitutes payment.
Nullifying the priciple would also be far more damaging to commercial interests than the FSF. Suddenly, an entire industry that already headed for a crisis regarding revenue has to worry about whether or not what constitutes "payment" under their licenses is unreasonable.
Such precedents could just as easily be applied to Microsoft CALS or Oracle Named Users.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
A licence is a type of contract.
Not at all. Some licenses are contracts, but not all. A license is a grant of rights. Some grants of rights require a contract (I'll give you these rights if you give me some money), but I can think of dozens that don't (I'll give you these rights in exchange for nothing).
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
Your missing the point. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the terms are more or less restrictive. It has to whether the rights are being granted or denied and therefore where the burden of proof lies.
In most EULA's legal rights that you would otherwise have are being taken away by the agreement. The burden of proof is on the software maker to PROVE that you are bound by an agreement taking those rights away.
In the GPL you are being GIVEN a right YOU DIDN"T HAVE AT ALL without the agreement. In a dispute the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that you have been granted rights that you wouldn't have if you didn't agree to the terms.
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.
With conventional, commercial information distribution, one typically must pay for every copy made -- often whether the copy is sold or not. :-)
Fair use copies excluded, of course
A contract requires reciprication. A license may be granted for free.
In both GPL'd and proprietary software you don't have the right to distribute copyrighted material without a license under copyright law
Yes, the "L" in GPL stands for license, and under that license you now CAN distribute the copyrighted material if you agree to a few conditions.
The GPL adds the requirement that you must license you source under the GPL which also not part of copyright law and in fact takes away a right (keeping your own source code private) that you would otherwise have were it not for the GPL.
The GPL does not ADD a requirement to a right you would otherwise have (absent the agreement). It has a requirement you must comply with if you want to exercise a RIGHT you DIDN'T have but the license is granting to you.
"Your" source is only affected if it is derived from the copyrighted material (and thus it's not really "your" work). I can't go buy the latest Grisham novel, change the ending and then sell "my novel", or even give it away for free - UNLESS Grisham grants me a license to do so. GPL works exactly like that - you can "change the ending of the novel" as long as the novel (now with your new ending) is still covered by the same licensing terms.
The conditions in the GPL are only in effect if you are excersising a right YOU DIDN"T HAVE without agreeing to the GPL. Most EULA's add conditions that you must agree to that take away rights you would have had if you had simply purchased the software WITHOUT the EULA. Take your example of reverse engineering - it was perfectly legal to do to a copyrighted piece of software that you had boght and your right to do if you so desired.
I don't have a problem with any agreements/contracts etc. making any terms whatsoever. If two parties voluntarily want to enter an agreement that says "in order to buy this software you must shave your head and bark like a dog at at the checkout counter" That is between the buyer and the seller and really none of my business. If you click a button that says "I Agree" when you don't - that is your problem. I was simply pointing out that it seems an agreement where you are being GRANTED rights (under certain conditions) that you wouldn't otherwise have, is in an inately stronger position than an agreement that RESTRICTS rights you would have had absent the agreement.