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.
This is Moglen's follow-up article referenced in the first one.
> 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 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.
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
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...How could it be anything but strong? You have no legal rights to GPL software other than those gained by agreeing to the license. The epiphany you're refering to is in the GPL.
5. 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. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
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.
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!
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));
.. 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.