peddrenth asks:
"Software licenses are, we keep saying, difficult to read. The public clicks OK without reading, either implicitly trusting or mistrusting us the software authors. There have been calls recently for companies to clean-up the license, to bullet, section, and colour their licenses, to remove THE UPPERCASE
and to draw charts and graphs to explain the license. Anyone who's had to read a 3-page document in a 3"x1" textbox knows how useful this would be. The GPL is one of the most important licenses in the world, and appears on thousands of products. Everything from windows programs to operating systems to people's artwork requires understanding and acceptance of the GNU GPL. Should we, the free software community, take the first step in this effort, and show the world what an easy-to-read license looks like? Would it be useful if long textual software licenses stood out like a sore thumb amongst the cool, pretty, and clear free licenses?" Many may think the GPL Preamble to be clear enough, and this may be true. However there are a lot of people out there that would like to read the
entire license so that they know exactly what they may be getting into,
before they agree to it. This usually implies being able reading the actual license, and not just the preamble.
"Should we use such a comparison to show the public how they're being manipulated by terms in a EULA they don't read or understand, and encourage other license-writers to include the graphs and tables themselves, showing the public what a license really means?
What would be your ideal license, what poster would you draw to explain the GPL to a child, a PHB, or an artist? Would you stick with the text, or can you think of anything better?"
jamie interjects: The root of the problem is that "intellectual property" is a kludge of a natural human understanding of property rights. Useful, but a kludge. You have to invent many
oddball concepts
to keep up the pretense that ideas are property. The GPL is a kludge (strict and precise licensing terms) implemented on top of a kludge (copyright law) and, in English or in code, there is no short and simple way to describe complex things.
Slashdot Mirror
Peter
Give the person Richard Stallman's home phone #. Then tell the person to call up and ask "What's the big deal about the GPL?"
Problem solved.
[o]_O
What was my stuff is now our stuff.
In return for this gift, I ask that if you improve our stuff it remains our stuff.
Should we, the free software community, take the first step in this effort, and show the world what an easy-to-read license looks like?
Licenses are lengthy, wordy, and hard to read for a reason. They try to ensure that no "loophole" can be made. The simpler you make the license, the more likely lawyers can "see multiple meanings in words", and avoid the license entirely.
IMHO, the free-software licenses SHOULD be wordy, because companies like Microsoft have lawyers constantly looking for a loophole...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
got stuck on the word 'or' in the perl license (GPL or Artistic)
I think there will always be a problem no matter how clear it seems to be.
One of the things that's nice about the GPL, and that I've just come to understand recently, is that it doesn't really matter if you 'accept' it, in the sense that you accept a EULA from MS. Since accepting the GPL actually gives you MORE freedoms than the normal copyright laws, if you don't accept the GPL on a program you get, you are actually more limited in what you can do with it. You can't distribute it, and surely can't distribute a modified version.. Whereas the other EULAs restrict you in addition to copyright restrictions, the GPL actually reduces the restrictions put upon you by copyright law.
You don't have to accept any license to use the GPL'ed software. Only people who redistribute should understand the license, because it only covers that activity. Doh!
Most of what the majority of non-lawyers need to know about the GPL can be summed up in one line:
The GPL does not impact users of the software, only distributors.
That's it. For that simple reason, the premise of this question is flawed. Most of the world simply uses software and doesn't redistribute it, therefore understanding and acceptance of the GNU GPL is not an issue.
Anyone who is distributing software (GPL or otherwise) really needs to take the time to understand the details of their redistribution agreement. As redistribution licenses are concerned, the GPL is very easy to understand and truly does stand out as a marvel of simplicity. The only simpler things are BSD and public domain :-)
.sig: file not found
Licenses are naturally complex things. That's ok. What isn't ok is that every company feels they need to write their own license specific to their product.
The strength of Open Source licenses for me is the fact that once I've read them through once, I can install countless applications without needing to read a license agreement.
If commercial software had a bunch of shrink-wrapped licenses that companies were free to use and each license was clearly identifiable near the top, then people could just click the "I agree" button and actually know what they were agreeing to.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
That said, Legal documents tend to have a monopoly on dry reading. To make a license perfectly clear will often required some sort of definitions. You can have a fairly simple concept, but when you go into the legal details, you can wind up with all kinds of extra verbiage, which makes people nervous about the whole thing, and then, at best, they will tend to bail out of the document.
There probably is a way to do this, although a lot of folks freak on anything too long.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Sure, I'd love to read a license and understand it. But what if I don't like it?
How many retailers are going to accept an opened copy of Office because someone actually read the print and found out that they were selling their soul to Microsoft?
I don't see it happening.
-techwolf
I don't do this for karma, I do it for cash. It's much better.
Before the preamble, state:
Or is that too simplistic?
Note that this does not accomplish one important end, in that it does not clearly distinguish itself from other EULAe, except that it devotes the first few sentences to "freedoms" rather than "limitations".
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Sure, you could try to simplify the GPL, but the fact of the matter is that what the GPL is attempting to do is very complicated. I challenge you to propose a simplified GPL which accomplishes the same goals as the GPL. I'm not even sure if the GPL itself accomplishes the goals of the GPL, this hasn't been tested in court at all yet.
I have a simple license, called the QingPL, but it is quite different from the GPL. Most significantly, it does not require that source code be released when a derivitive work is released.
From http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.ht
No SIG for you!
Of course the user could just get up and go to the bathroom during playback.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I worked for a local Government, who were already brainwashed by Microsoft's sales. Here is the dialogs during a meeting debating with a MCSE whether we should use GPL's code:
Me: We could save money using this pieces of GPL code..
MCSE: Doesn't that make all the derived work GPL?
Me: Yes.
MCSE: Then we must release our source code to public! This is confidential!!
Me: No....we are only required to release the source code when the recipents has the binary. We wouldn't release our system to public...
MCSE: but according to GPL, the source code is open to all to read!(?) The other department could read it and might release them to public!
Me: You might have misunderstood the concept...according to GPL's FAQ we do not need to release the source code if we use them within an organization. A Government is one big organization, which is very suitable to adopt GPL....
MCSE: That's NOT I heard about GPL. I don't believe in what you said! GPL is about opensource and any dervied works must be made opensource, this is a very restrictive license and there's no way out!
and things went downhill from there. My boss trusted him because he has an MCSE.
I still ponder, what qualification in MCSE would make him know GPL better than others...
A good summary should highlight the key points
You may freely use this software.
Certain conditions are required to distribute this software.
That is pretty much it as I see it anyway
http://www.badsoftware.com/uccindex.htm It doesn't matter if the software has a license which said "One line license: We own you!". That would be simple to understand, but the problem is ruling it legal.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Copyright gives the rights of ownership, copying, distribution, and modification of a work to the author of a work, unless they decide to give those rights to others. GPL modifies basic copyrights to automatically give the rights of copying, distribution, and modification to anyone else who also chooses to everyone with access to the work as long as they continue the right of unlimited access to the work.
In short, as far as I understand it, a clear description of the GPL would be as follows:
This source and binaries (work) is protected by the General Public License (GPL). This work belongs to the original author or authors (owners), but the owners have granted everyone rights to copy, modify, and redistribute the work under the stipulation that any changes to the source are made available to anyone with access to the binaries, as defined by the GPL. This work is protected under standard copyright law if you do not agree to the GPL, meaning you cannot redistribute a modified binary without the consent of the owners of the source.
GPL Deconstructed
have a state diagram, showing what is required to go between states.
i.e., have initial state of [PURCHASED], have an arrow to [MODIFY], [DISTRIBUTE], etc, with proper conditions which must be met to go to that state.
actually, this might make the GPL look much more complicated that most commercial licenses, which would just have the state of [LICENSED] and no way to get to modify or distribute, etc.
-rp
I guess you could explain it the same way that John Travolta explained the basics of marijuana laws in Amsterdam, NL to Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction.
(Jules and Vincent driving in a car)
Jules: Okay now. Tell me about the GNU GPL.
Vincent: What do you want to know?
Jules: Well, it's about free software, right?
Vincent: It's free, but it has some standards. I mean you can't just write a GNU GPL program and restrict it's usage. You're supposed to provide the source code.
Jules: That's the GNU GPL?
Vincent: Yeah, it breaks down like this: It's legal to copy it, it's legal to have access to the source code and, if you're a programmer that wants to add to it, you can as long as your additions to the code go under the GNU GPL. It's legal to keep the program free, which doesn't really matter 'cause-get a load of this- if a company wants to add to your program and not offer the source code, it's illegal. Taking GNU GPL'd programs and not offering the source code is a right that companies don't have.
Jules:That did it, man. I'm f***ing GPL-ing my program. That's all there is to it.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Where you need to worry about the implications of the GPL are if you're a) a developer or b) a loudmouth who complains about alleged GPL violations. Come to think of it, you don't need to know anything to be a loudmouth who complains about alleged GPL violations.
By the way, Jamie and Michael, if you have something to say, please post it instead of giving yourselves an automatic (Score: 6, Editor).
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Most people's eyes glaze over when they think they have to read a contract/license. Prod them into actaully reading the GPL - it's in real english and is honestly written. It's also a brillient bit of leagal-ese.
Courts have traditionally ruled in favor of the consumer if the contract is un-nesessarly obscure, so making the GPL hard to read in an vain attempt to close a loophole can be counterproductive if done in haste. Also, one must be carefull to not give a poorly thought out explenation of the GPL with the GPL - the court might rule that the explenation grants additional rights if the consumer is confused as to if the explenation is part of the contract/license.
So the short answer is to actually READ the GPL. There are no explenaions nesessary to an inteligent person - and no explenation will do the cosumer any good anyways. It's only us developers that need an explenation - we're the ones that can get caught in a GPL bind, not the average consumer.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
We've had a problem for YEARS with our legal beagles and the openSSH licence because the author thought he/she was being cute. The licence has a section that more or less says "I'm not entirely sure that I haven't borrowed pieces of code where those authors may decide to come after a user for any reason. At any rate that's not my problem and strictly a matter between you and them."
Which is a horrible way to protect the author from third party lawsuits. And the result is that our corporation does not officially sanction the use of openSSH. This leads to more suspicion and resistance to other open source tools and generally makes a mess of the whole effort.
I really wish authors would get a legal reading of their own licences for a reality check before doing what commercial licences do - that is "use this software and you are on your friggin own no matter what hombre!! I mean what next for licences? Rilly rilly kewl pictures and animations and shit?
As the resident office open source nut, a major part of my (non paid) role is stopping my employer stealing open source code. I have lost count of the number of times that I have found stolen open source code in our products. I say "stolen" advisedly, and it's the word I use when confronting the culprits.
The problem is that many of them simply do not understand that there is a cost associated with using "free" software. Sure, it's their fault for not reading it, but it would make my life a lot easier if we stopped wielding the word "free" like a weapon (it means too many things to too many people), and if the GPL (and other open source licenses) opened like this:
This code is copyrighted. It is not "free to use". You may not copy or use it in any way, including for non-commercial purposes, unless you follow strictly the enclosed license terms. If you do not read or follow the license terms, you will be in breach of copyright, and can and will be prosecuted for theft.
I'd say that a clear statement like this is way more important than the DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY that we tend to splash first. The disclaimer is there to protect the author, but a clear warning that open source code is copyrighted and strictly licensed protects the recipient from doing something stupid and causing grief to both parties. I'd say that it's more in the spirit of open source development to prioritise the copyright/license warning than the disclaimer.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think a good structure with something amounting to code comments might do the trick. Have the short version be a breakdown of the practicle implications. Write up a document of what each piece means, then write the lawyer speak translation in a sub-section.
I think keeping the lawyer language seperated and in confined and in smaller sections if necessary for someone who doesn't already understand it to figure it out.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Unless you're an expert, it's hard to get the recipe (the source) from the food (the binary). The GPL is saying "Here's the recipe, and here's some food someone else has made with that recipe, all free for the taking. But if you make and give away or sell food based on the recipe I just gave you, you've got to give away your recipe for free as well."
I know analogies suck, but it's close enough.
I say software should have a license that we can read from the package. I mean, If I go and buy a piece of software that comes in its nice little box, Id sure like to read the rules to use it before I go to the cashier and pay. Whats the point of the license if I cant read it until I pay for the thing!.
Its not only important to be able to read and understand an EULA, but to be able to read it at an adequate time; besides, if the EULA fits on the back of the box could be a good parameter for readability.
Dang, I already used my last mod point on a worthless comment (compared to this one) in another thread not too long ago, boy I wish I had saved it for you. This, so far, the best commment in this thread.
I think if users knew that several products were under the XYZ license, they could just read it once and know what they're getting themselves in to. However, most users assume that all EULAs are the same so they just mindlessly click through them when in many cases (i.e. Microsoft) they are NOT the same and their use of the software and their privacy is limited more by some licenses than by others. I think if more people know that the Window XP license granted Microsoft the right to spy on their computer, most people would think twice about it.
I think commercial companies should draft up a 'Standard Software License' (or a suite of licenses) that the user can refer to or be familiar with. So, on the box instead of just saying that you agree to the license agreement in the box, it can say that this software is released under the 'Standard Software License' (or another XYZ license) and the user will know what that is.
However, I should point out that even in the Open Source community, there are some company-specific software licenses such as the QPL, the Mozilla License, the Aladdin License, etc. But the number of products released under these licenses is very small relative to the numbers released under the GPL, LGPL, etc.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
The author of the EULA can, of course, write whatever he likes into the licence but the more obscure terms may well be judged to be unenforceable when it comes right down to it and this outcome is much more likely if the document itself is written in obscure legalese and presented in an unhelpful format.
The more presentable and easy to understand, the more enforceable.
In the UK, we have laws such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act which outlaw certain types of clause even if they are easy to read but might allow others ONLY if they are easy to understand.
By all means use the GPL as a shining example of the way it should be done, it may actually be used in court to help defeat some of the more ridiculous EULAs.
How to explain GPL to capitalists:
This software contains the intellectual property of several people. Intellectual property is a valuable resource, and you cannot expect to be able to use someone else's intellectual property in your own work for free.
Many businesses and individuals are willing to trade their intellectual property in exchange for something of value; usually money. For example, in return for a sum of money, you might be granted the right to incorporate code from someone's software program into your own.
The developers of this software are willing to trade you the right to use their intellectual property in exchange for something of value. However, instead of money, the developers are willing to trade you the right to freely incoroporate their code into your software in exchange for the right to freely incorporate your code into theirs. This exchange is to be done by way of and under the terms of the GPL.
If you do not think that this is a fair bargain, you are free to decline and to develop your own code or purchase it from someone else. You will still be allowed to use the software yourself, which is awfully nice of the developers, since you probably didn't pay them a penny for it in the first place. If you feel that this would make you a freeloading communist welfare addict, you may instead opt to purchase similar software from a less generous developer.
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
this program is free
give it away or change it
but please keep it free
---
I give you my work
you must let your breath go free
we share the same moon
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
As several people on this discussion have pointed out, the unfortunate thing about software licences (and legal documents generally) is that they are, by their nature, trying to be very exact. There is a reason that "shall" and "will" mean very different things in law, and that lawyers use the correct one, yet in common speech, most people would interpret them much the same way. Legalese has become complicated to deal with the problem of details: if you're not precise enough, you'll be (wilfully or otherwise) misinterpreted.
The next obvious thing to do is to introduce a summary of the licence, as the parent post by bshroyer and others have suggested. Unfortunately, that immediately raises the question of whether the summary is complete (almost by definition, it isn't), accurate, or even a fair representation of the real licence. Can anyone hear the words "legal minefield" in the back of their minds right now? I hope so. What if the summary and licence terms disagree? What if the summary looked reasonable, but the licence contained a restriction unmentioned in it, causing someone to violate the licence agreement because they'd trusted the summary? (That's actually the worst case, in a way, because if someone can't trust the summary to tell them what's going on, what's the point?) Do you try to introduce new laws now to force summaries to be fair reflections on the summarised material? If you could do that, why bother with the full version at all?
Why, indeed. In fact, for a long time, Borland used to have a licence agreement (called something like the "no nonsense licence agreement" IIRC) that aimed at much this purpose. It wasn't full of any more legalese than necessary. While it had to be long enough and in enough legalese to be precise, it wasn't deliberately obfuscated. I think they could score a major coup over the MS' of the world now if they brought back such an agreement, and marketed based on its ease and trustworthiness vs. MS' (un)Trustworthy Computing initiative that seems to steal half your (non-)rights through the EULA. (Remember Borland still offer MS major competition in the development tools market, for example, and hitting developers who would otherwise be drifting into MS' .NET program isn't going to do Microsoft any favours.)
So, basically, yes, your suggestion is far too simplistic, simply because the whole "summary" issue opens up too many cans of worms. OTOH, in the spirit of your suggestion, a licence agreement that was much shorter, to the point, precise enough but not deliberately hard to read would be a great improvement.
Now, if anyone thinks the big corps should be required to do this because it's easy, please submit your proposed rewrite of the GPL on a postcard...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I've always had to wonder, IS THERE ANY LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE TO PASSAGES WRITTEN IN ALL UPPERCASE? Or is it just one of those annoying things like ESL business owners uneccessarily placing things between quotation marks?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Then we'd have to rename the GPL to .annoy
=)
Karma: Non-Heinous
The irony is that contract lawyers generally consider the ALL CAPS section to be a means of complying with the requirement that warranty disclaimers are "conspicuous."
"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours." Press OK to accept. Press CANCEL to accept.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
...how far the publisher's wishes are from the rights and restrictions laid down by copyright (and liability) law.
Want the licenses to be shorter? Change the law so that the default rights, restrictions, and liabilities are closer to a typical publisher's desires.
IMHO, this is actually a very bad idea, because the desires of publishers aren't the same as the desires of the people who live under the law. Keeping licenses long and complex is a good way to keep people conscious of this fact.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"You may not copy or use it in any way,"
Change copy to distribute, and that'd be all good.
Lest us not forget fair use. =)
Karma: Non-Heinous
I've gone down this path so many time before that I can't bring myself to elucidate again. From the perpective of someone that reads, writes, and negotiates well-crafted, compendious and effective software agreements, the GPL isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A HUGE part of contracting is understanding how to preclude crafty attacks from crafty lawyers. The GPL is niave and fails miserably in this respect. Don't take my word for it, though. Just sit back and watch the outcome of the first serious lawsuit challenging the GPL. I'm sure the geeks will all blame the courts and the judge and the judicial system, but the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the lawyer-bashing bohemian cultists that wrote and revised the GPL. They are going to be very embarassed.
So if you changed from upper case to bold italic lower case, you would very likely face a legal challenge that your notice was not "noticable", and you would have to fight that throught the court hierarchy. However, once somebody did do this, then others could use that as precedent.
A point that should be noted is that if you do not agree to the liscence after you have purchased the software you are generally $&!# out of luck as there are no stores I know of (In the US.) That will take back open software. So either I use the software and agree to the liscence or I have just wasted my money. Maybe we need easy to read liscences that we can read before we get the software?
There are some interesting issues here. The organization of a book is to some extent protected by copyright: if you write a book, and I write a book with an identical table of contents, I'm violating your copyright. By analogy, I guess mimicing an object hierarchy, for example, would be forbidden.
Anyone know any precedents?
(IANAL, just a programmer who's studied copyright issues more deeply than most.)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Asking to make a license simple and easy to understand by those not trained in legal matters is very much akin to asking to make code simple and easy to understand by those not trained in computers.
A certain level of complexity is needed to make both legal documents, and code to work.
Of course, the requirements of our overly complex legal system make this much harder.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Actually, I think most people (including me) fall into the "Don't give a crap" category. I'll install the software and use it any damn way I want.
Ich werde nie wieder denken
GNU Haiku
You may use the source
Change at will, port, give away
But with the new source
BSD Haiku
You may use the source
Change at will, port, give away
With source if you want
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Oh God.. Wow. This just works way, way too well. I mean, like, you can keep going with it...
.45 automatics laying near the back, loading and cocking them.)
-----
VINCENT: You'll dig it the most. But you know what the funniest thing about Open Source software is?
JULES: What?
VINCENT: It's the little differences. A lotta the same shit we got here, they got there, but there they're a little different.
JULES: Examples?
VINCENT: Well, in KDE, you can embed a web browser in your file manager. And I don't mean that you're using the web browser for your file manager like in Win98 either. They give you a plug-in browser, like you can install or remove any browser you like anytime you want, like in Opendoc. And in GNOME, you can embed like Mozilla or drawing apps or whatever into anything. Also, you know what they call their image editing program?
JULES: They don't call it Photoshop?
VINCENT: No, they use UNIX there, they wouldn't know who the fuck Adobe is.
JULES: What do they call it?
VINCENT: The "GIMP".
JULES: (repeating, grinning softly) The "GIMP". What do they call their word processor?
VINCENT: Well, the word processor is still Office, but they call it "OpenOffice".
JULES: What do they call their IDE?
VINCENT: I dunno, I didn't code anything. But you know what they use in Open Source software to configure their webservers instead of preferences dialogs?
JULES: What?
VINCENT: Text files.
JULES: Goddamn!
VINCENT: I seen 'em do it. And I don't mean a couple of extra options, they fuckin' do everything with that shit. Like, they drown you in it. Anything you wanna change about the way the webserver looks, you have to open up this big-ass file named "httpd.conf" and search through the file for the place where they explain what words to put where if you want it to act a certain way.
JULES: Uuccch!
(Cut to shot from inside the G4 tower case as Vincent and Jules open up from the side panel, reach in, and pull out two
JULES: We should have shotguns for this kind of deal.
-----
OK.. obvious, not funny/relevant.. I'm sorry.. I'm sorry!!! I just couldn't resist..!! Please don't hurt me. ^_^
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It's not explaining the GPL to non-lawyers that is
the problem, it is explaining it to lawyers.
The company I work for employes a lot of Open Source Lawyers. All of the lawyers hate the GPL. They all love the idea and hate the wording. It was obviously not written by a lawyer, and hence though clear to you and me is not clear to a judge who actually has to enforce it.
Also the GPL has not been tested in court.
Admittidly most of the confusion involves interaction with non GPL code. For instance if you worked on a Linux device driver for product x under the GPL could you then work on a BSD device driver for product x? The answer is probably not, the BSD device driver could be seen as a derivitave work and you would have to release it under the GPL, which wouldn't fly very well at the BSD distributions who like to release under the BSD liscense.
You see we usually think of GPL infecting closed source, which most people would argue is a good thing. But the downside is that closed source developers cannot contribute to GPL projects because it might look like some of what they did under GPL was done under closed source, if it was or not.
Then even worse the same applies to devlopers under BSD or public domain type of liscences. This decreases sharing, it does not increase it.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
http://redhat.rsc03.net/servlet/website/ResponseFo rm?koEX-UA-TV.3dwe3LIJHlmyLn-aw
I guess the webcast is aimed at "business executives" but should be usable for most people without a law background who are interested on the GPL...
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
You need not agree to a license in order to use this software.
The installation should somewhere contain copyright information, warantee disclaimer (which the user is not required to approve), and a link to the GPL. See also How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Yes, dammit, I'm serious.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The preamble to the GPL is adequate because it does not need to be read (much less agreed to) for a user to use GPL software. There is no EULA. The GPL itself does not apply until a user attempts to distribute, modify, or otherwise create derivatives of the software. This will almost never happen in the normal use of most software.
It would be more appropriate to draft the GPL using RFC terminology so that those who will be distributing, modifying, or otherwise creating derivative programs can understand the license. Coders don't speak legalese, but most can grok an RFC.
Nathan
This is one thing that really bugs me about the continual "augh, it's a GPL infection!" fear that some people have.
That worry (about copyright infringement due to code you've seen) is present with any source that's visible - I imagine that some companies are very certain to make sure you've never looked at any of Sun's source if you're working on a similar project. (The consequences would probably be royalties to Sun instead of disclosure of source code) Or, for example, Microsoft not letting its ie people look at any of Mozilla's NPL-covered code. Likewise, you can't copy VB code verbatim out of some PC magazine's sample utility. (There was a controversy about this back in the Windows 3.1 days, when a piece of commercial software appeared that was just a different GUI on top of a free utility some magazine had published. The magazine's publisher was not amused.)
Singling the GPL out as especially viral only makes sense if GPL code is especially attractive, tempting developers in ways no non-GPL code could. While I'm certain that RMS would love to hear that GPL'ing a piece of software instantly improves the source's appeal, we both know that isn't the case.
As for expensive litigation, I'd think most companies would find Netscape/AOL/TW's lawyers more fearsome than the FSF's.
I'm only mostly joking here. That would keep all licences short and sweet. Case in Point: the GPL in haiku.
What was mine is ours
Add to ours as you see fit
What is ours stays ours
AveryZero
"Many may think the GPL Preamble to be clear enough, there are a lot of people out there that would like to be able to read the entire license to know exactly what they may be getting into, before they agree to it, and this means being reading the actual license, not just the preamble."
Many who have actually read the GPL understand that merely _using_ GPL software does not involve agreeing to it. From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not covered by this License;
they are outside its scope. The act of running
the Program is not restricted...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It's tricky when it comes to software, since it hasn't been determined yet by the courts whether a software sale is a sale of a product or a sale of a license
Yes it has: Softman Products Company LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc. U.S. federal law, 17 USC 101 defines a "copy" as the physical disc on which a computer program is recorded. If the transfer of a copy of a program looks like a sale, walks like a sale, and quacks like a sale, then it's a sale, thus making the "owner of a copy" under 17 USC 117 the person who buys the box.
Some people might chime in and claim that MAI v. Peak nullified 117. I don't think so. The text of the decision interpreted 117 out of context; the case it referenced, Apple v. Formula, involved selling copies, but the facts of MAI v. Peak didn't. (The decision prompted a rider to the DMCA that amended 117 to authorize repair or maintenance of a computer system.) The real copyright infringement seems to have involved the "rental, lease, or lending" of a computer program separate from any hardware in which it may be embedded, and 17 USC 109 prohibits rental of software without authorization of the copyright owner.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Today's EULAs are indeed difficult to read and many of the terms often make me regret I bought the software - but I'm in a catch 22 here. To read the EULA I have to open the box, thus preventing me from returning the software box (thanks to those "we won't accept opened software" clauses at so many stores). So I'm now stuck with a $50 software purchase and so I can at least claim some of my $50 worth, I'll usually agree to the EULA just so I can install it and recoup my losses.
Right now they list system requirments on the box, so I think they should have an abbreviated version of the EULA on the box so you know what you're getting into (no resale clause, one copy per computer clause regardless of household, etc.) before you purchase.
Realizing that what I've proposed is difficult to implement and probably impractical, I still think if put in place you'd see how fast friendly EULAs sell the product, and those with restrictive EULAs get heavily pirated and/or not sold off the shelves. Also, I'd think open-source material would sell rather well due to the nice EULA agreement.
Just my two cents anyway.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
Just modify it for the name of your software and adapt the control sequences to whatever suits your software (like clicks, or command line arguments).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
It help if you think of the GPL not as human-readable text, but instead as machine code to be executed by the US legal system.
The structure, the case, the layout, etc, are all important, and you cant just change them. Comprehendability doesnt even come into the equation. And translation is out of the question. (You cant translate machine code from one architecture to another. So to make a chinese GPL, you'd have to "recompile" it for chinese law. And it makes no sense to have a US-law GPL in chinese- because US legal documents must be in English)
If you want a layman to understand the GPL, you are better off pointing them at a FAQ.
Wait ... you're asking this on Slashdot? That's like asking Palestine to get along with Israel or vice versa.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
That really sucks. My karma's 49, so I'll just burn some: Slashdot moderation has gone all to hell. The whole site is now about 50% troll posts, and anyone who disagrees with the "party line" is modded down as a troll. I thought the whole idea of a discussion site was to stir up debate, with conflicting views, not some kind of "We're all so much better than everyone else" daisychain club wankfest.
If you do not think that this is a fair bargain, you are free to decline and to develop your own code or purchase it from someone else. You will still be allowed to use the software yourself, which is awfully nice of the developers, since you probably didn't pay them a penny for it in the first place. If you feel that this would make you a freeloading communist welfare addict, you may instead opt to purchase similar software from a less generous developer.
Or send the developers a check. Please, let's not leave that one out.
I think that you are grossly mis-representing the post you're responding to. That post merely frames the issue in terms of other licences that software developers may already understand. Instead of using the confusing tactic of portraying the GPL as akin to freeware, the poster merely relates that the GPL is not a "free lunch". Nothing in the article is particularly communist or anti-capitalist.
Actually the person that you responded to quite adequately pointed out "how the two can actually work together".
Treat it with the same respect and caution that you would treat commercial software: no more no less. Cooperation and captialism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is a *huge* worry for some companies, and quite validly so.
This explains a lot, you know.
Why are some newspaper editorials nearly illiterate? The publishers must not be allowing their editors to read books, lest they accidentally insert copyrighted phrases and ideas into their own work!
Why does so much popular music reek? Because the record companies won't let their artists listen to much real music, lest they inadvertently copy chords and lyrics into their own songs!
Why is the movie industry obsessed with remaking old TV shows, old movies, and old comic books? Because if they put out an original film, there's a danger of them accidentally copying somebody else's copyright, so they might as well buy the rights to some existing creative work and copy it on purpose instead!
Seriously, though, if the justice system understood software, there shouldn't be any "potentially explosive litigation", because there shouldn't be that double standard. Writing a hash table that happens to resemble something you saw in glib shouldn't be any less legal than writing a magazine article that happens to use phrases you read in a book.
The GPL does not prevent you from selling the code under another, non-GPL license for commercial use. To wit, direct from the GPL:
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
Ok, barring the obvious "we're obfuscating it for the same reason every mobile phone has a different tariff so you really haven't got a clue which one is cheaper", what about standard licences? A EULA could state "This is a standard Type 1 licence, click here for more details" - if you already know what a Type 1 licence is, you know what the license states without having to read heaps of legal mumbo jumbo to try to determine if this is something you've seen before; equally, if you agree with Type 1 licences then you implicitly agree with any other software with a Type 1 licence. A different licence could be a different type, or an existing type "with the following modifications..." This would make it obvious if the company is trying to pass off a standard licence with a well hidden gotcha.
Wonder if Stallman could answer this case:
You take some GLP program and improve it for your personal or comapny use. Someone steals a binary copy from you and post it in the web and many people start using it unknowingly.
So basically, this derived work IS STILL UNDER THE GPL, so EVERYONE will be able to use your leaked PRIVATE USE MODIFIED BINARY (or source eventually) for free (the leaked one). Not only that, YOU WILL BE FORCED TO RELEASE YOUR SOURCE CODE since your version has been distributed.
So this IS IN FACT unacceptable for any company that is taking advantage of the "free for non-distributors".
If you don't force this company to disclose the source, then everyone could just take advantage of the "leak" distribution method.
I don't know, but this alones scares me. Not because i want to break the GPL, but because all these kind of stuff if what big companies that don't like the GPL will be trying over the years untill some hole in it kills it.
unfinished: (adj.)
The irony is that contract lawyers generally consider the ALL CAPS section to be a means of complying with the requirement that warranty disclaimers are "conspicuous."
I should hope any contract lawyer worth his salt doesn't still think so, since that's been explicitly refuted in at least one appeals court ruling.
More likely, it's been cut and paste forever.
So you are granting me that i can "leak distribute" ANY GPL derived work in binary form and get away with it?
If, instead, the source code gets leaked, then it's an practical case where a derived work from a GPLd source thats been distributed changed the license to "illegal to use" and I am not accountable for it.
I'm probably wrong, but i think i should be able to prove i didn't distribute it (binary or source). Until I prove that, I'm just a GPL abuser and can be sued by the original authors copyright.
I can think of many similar or related ways to try to mud the GLP waters and this are just examples. Another short example: say i'm part of an organization "GPL Abusers Club". Can we all members of that club take GPLd source, modify it and use it without ever distributing the source and much less, making it available for free for everyone?
What if the club forced you to use Windows, OS-X or some other restriction that would make it impossible to join it freely?
I'm not trying to troll. I'm trying to lookahead and learn. I'd be very sad if all this hard work that is beign released as GPL gets abused by (lets say) evel minds.
unfinished: (adj.)
Forget about sin() and cos(), think about the STL. If you use multimap, have you created a work derivative of the STL? This is a very important question. What happens if I compile my code on a machine that has a mythical GPLd STL? Oooh...
There's another consideration you need to make for determining derivation that's related to macros. But it's a very fuzzy criteria. And that is the purpose of the macro. At some point, fair use comes into play. My opinion is that if you use the macro in its normal intended manner, you are covered by fair use.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I would say that the output of bison falls under fair use.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I am an end user, is it dangerous for me? Or for any user that does might have "skipped over a few of the details"?
But well, to answer your question, yes, i have read it carefully. Maybe I'm dumb but at least I state my facts. And with the Lindows issue i'd not say it's all that clear as you may think, not even after reading it wthout skipping any details.
unfinished: (adj.)
you have a good point: contracts can be in other languages: what i was getting at is the weight of precedence behind contracts in english is what prevents spurious legal challenges.
If the GPL were in another language, it could possibly be ignored in certain contexts (primarily english content lets say) because it was obscure.
what legal wrangling of this type would accomplish im not sure since ianal, however the primary function of the legal system seems to be outspending your opponent to deny him the ability to reach any legal conclusion; so anything that can get by the "dismissed with prejudice by the original judge" is dangerous.
That was exactly my point. Thanks for getting it :)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
If you read it again, you'll find that the terms of the equations are refered to as NUMBERS. POSITIVE INTEGERS refers to the "natural" or "counting" numbers. So no, actually, my wordy answer is not wrong. However, I think I've proved my point ;)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I have LPI and Sair certifications. The other widely-recognized certifications are Linux+ (which I'll be getting soon) and Red Hat RHCE (which is expensive). In order of importance (i.e. worthy of respect), I'd rank them RHCE, LPI, Linux+, and Sair. The RHCE includes nearly a full day of hands-on installation and troubleshooting, making it quite difficult, much like Cisco's CCIE.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.