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. . ."
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
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...)
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
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.
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?)
Heh. I wonder if the FSF could become a member of the BSA?
Not that they'd ever participate in such an thing, but wouldn't it be funny if the BSA raided MS to make sure they weren't abusing the GPL?
Hmmm... Unlike the MS EULAs the GPL probably doesn't allow for intrusive audits. Oh well.
"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!
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));