Slashdot Mirror
A Beginner's Look At GPL Enforceability
sirmikester writes "I wrote a term paper for my University of Illinois law class about the enforceability of the GPL. Unlike most of the papers dealing with the GPL, this one was aimed at a primarily non-technical audience. While a little bit rough around the edges, I'm sure it could give all of the non-technical folks out there a look at the GPL, and why its so important to all of us. There is also a powerpoint presentation available of the speech that I gave to the class about the paper. "
Batman forever!
The presentation is in powerpoint? Does this mean that when you really want to get your point across, you have to use Microsoft???? Come on now!
Still Puzzled but the use of words Starting with uppercase Letters.
The Capital.... Letters Show The Proper Accenting.... Of Words So You.... Sound Like Shatner. Every Word Is A....Title.
Are the paper/presentation GPLed?!?!
Is the paper/presentation GPLed?!?!
Windows posted Sol.exe under the GPL?!?!
Physics makes the world go 'round.
Personally, I wouldn't have put the people calling it into question and then the fact that it is unproven legally at the end. It might be best for the flow, but to conclude "All of this might be meaningless, as it hasn't been proven to work!" is slightly strange to me.
I didn't learn anything new from reading this, but there are those that might, as was stated by the submitter. In my opinion, telling the uninitiated simply that the GPL grants the right to use the code however you like, but if you decide to distribute it you have to agree to the contract stating that you'll give the source as well. If they have other questions, send them to the GNU.org philosophy page
That's scary.
Very nice work, Michael. Have you considered sending it to Darl for review?
I forgot to post this in my original post, but Linksys is now offering their code in compliance with GPL. http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp
Physics makes the world go 'round.
Very nice. Please pass this paper on to no techies that you know. Spread the world. You can also post a comment about it on groklaw.net
You fail it!
Come on, we all know that Microsoft helps you easily dumb things down. Why make something functional when you can easily make something pretty?
Not to say open source can't be pretty. In fact, I'm going to go back to ogling the program I found this morning called filelight
That's scary.
Can you post this in ASCII please? When I download it I get an error in the PDF file because it is corrupted.
--Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
Creating a presentation on GPL Enforceability.... in Powerpoint.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Why not OpenOffice.org formats?
I'm sorry (that many of you will disagree with me), but any paper starting out with GNU/Linux instead of just plain Linux isn't going to get more than passing attention from me.
Would you call Kool-Aid "Water/Kool-Aid" just because without water it's not as useful?
Pre-pending GNU to Linux is an affront to the Linux trademark. Microsoft would be furious if people started advertising "x86/Windows XP".
If you must pay homage to the GNU utilities often included in free software, it's sufficient to say "Linux with GNU utilities," or some similar phrase. If people want to get GNU into the mainstream they can build their own distribution or OS and name it whatever they want.
Name your distribution anything you want. When referring to any distribution or OS primarily using the Linux kernel as its kernel then the term is "Linux". A Linux OS is any OS which uses the Linux kernel. GNU is not an OS. GNU/Linux does not refer to any OS in general, or specifically. If anything, it may refer to the utilities specific to linux systems, but I do not know of any GNU utilities which work only on linux systems and not on other operating systems.
Go sell your memes elsewhere.
-Adam
Okay, just so I'm clear on this... the presentation on GPL enforceability is done in PowerPoint? Do I have a license for that?
The whole paper appears to be centred around the idea that the GPL is a contract. Most people seem to think the GPL is actually a licence, not a contract - this kind of makes the whole paper useless, in my opinion, and is what led to the confused conclusion.
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ is a useful discussion of the difference, once you accept it as a licence the whole discussion of "enforcability" kind of goes out of the window.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
short bibliography, and you don't express any original ideas. No wonder all our jobs are being outsourced. Anyone can summarize a few usenet posts and throw in enough filler and footnotes to make it 12 pages. I'm sorely unimpressed.
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees
It's too simplistic to say that a court case will either confirm or deny the validity of the GPL. As always, the court will focus on the minutiae of the situation. It's very rare for a court to say "this contract is not legally enforceable in any situation" (unless the contract is for an illegal purpose or is so vague as to be meaningless). More likely, if a court rules against enforcement of the GPL in a case, it will cite some factual item in support. E.g. that the recipient of the software did not have proper notice of the license - quite possible if a company hires an outside programmer to do some work on some GPL'd code. Sure the GPL would bind the programmer, but it might not bind the company if they'd never looked at the source code or even realised the software was GPL.
It's no use (as is claimed in the paper) to say that the company had no right to distribute the software except under the GPL. That doesn't mean it's accepted the GPL by the act of distributing the software, if it has no knowledge of the GPL. That argument is like saying if I steal something, I must have agreed to buy it (since otherwise it would not be mine) and am in breach of contract for not paying for it. While someone distributing software without permission is in breach of copyright, it's different to distributing software in breach of the GPL. In the former, the copyright owner can stop distribution/use of the code, but he can't compel the distributer to release the source code, nor to hand over copyright in the modifications made to the code.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
How ironic that your demand to give GNU no credit at all is worded so strongly. The FSF asks you to give GNU a share of the credit, it is not a demand. Lots of people (including Debian, one of the most respected GNU/Linux distributions) choose to do so out of respect for creating the free software community and the GNU General Public License. This is not a trademark infringement.
GNU is an operating system, it was designed to be so right from the start, just as the Linux kernal was designed to be a kernal from the start. Now you can run GNU without the Linux kernal; there are variants of GNU running with a NetBSD kernal and the official GNU running with the HURD kernal replacement. Neither of these are currently as popular as the variant of GNU with the Linux kernal, but they exist and are being developed. Calling things what they are is more technically accurate and it's reasonable to call works by the names their creators gave them. Giving credit where credit is due is a good thing to do.
Digital Citizen
The open source movement did not exist at the time the GPL, copyleft, the free software movement, and the GNU project started. It seems odd, therefore, to give credit to a movement that had nothing to do with creating these documents and forming these ideas. As it stands, you appear to be using the terms "open source" and "free software" interchangably, as though they refer to the same thing. However the open source movement stands for a different philosophy than the free software movement.
Digital Citizen
This is to inform you that because of excessive bandwidth usage,
your ResNet account will be terminated for a period of 3 months.
If you feel this is too extreme a corrective measure,
you may appeal this decision to the OIT office.
Sincerely,
Campus Windows Admin
First, I find a interesting (by interesting I mean big omission) that a contract analysis of the GPL could not mention the UCC (uniform commercial code). Either article 2 (sale of goods, which many courts have applied to software licensing - even though it doesn't really fit) or draft UCC article 2B.
- ucc2b.html
/.ers already know.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/linux/gpl
How about trade secret protection? Might the Uniform Trade Secret Act (state laws) protect a company who is in violation of the GPL from having to publish their code?
This is only the tip of the iceberg. This paper didn't really tell me anything that most
Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
most universities make it a requirement to use powerpoint or somesuch. while the author of the paper probably would have done it via some sort of open software solution, the university may very well not approve of it. so yes.... it is ironic that a paper on the gpl has also a powerpoint presentation, but the author probably didn't have a choice in the matter.
Close the world, txEn eht nepO
to all those making such comments... most universities make it a requirement to use powerpoint or somesuch. while the author of the paper probably would have done it via some sort of open software solution, the university may very well not approve of it. so yes.... it is ironic that a paper on the gpl has also a powerpoint presentation, but the author probably didn't have a choice in the matter.
Close the world, txEn eht nepO
--"k i guess this was wrong"wrong /" I quit--
Someone like Yoda would have problems "you understanding".
Sorry to destroy your day på gpl is a license and not a contract. :2 142 10634851&query=gpl+is+a+license
Check it out here
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031
"a lot of the confusion about the gpl stems from this central isue: Which is it? a license or a contract? The reason that matters is because if it's a contract, then you enforce it under contract law, which is enforced state by state, and there are certain necessary elements to qualify as a valid contract. If it's a license, then it's enforced under copyright law, and that's enforced on the federal level according to the terms of copyright law, not contract law. The penalties available are not the same."
[...]
"The gpl is unequivocally a license, and that's the truth."
I run a club on the UIUC campus called the "Free Software Society"
We just brought Brad Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation here to campus for a great introduction to GPL. His question and answer at the end of the speech discussed topics such as enforcement.
Anybody can listen to the speech here off our website, near the bottom. Its in, of course, a free-software supported codec format. (ogg)
--- Kicking the Cheat since late 2002
The GPL Section 2 says:
The GPL says that you may modify, copy, and distribute. Article b) says that any modified work you distribute or publish must be done so under the same GPL license. It does NOT in any way say that if you modify the program for your own use, you must redistribute it.
It may sound like I'm picking nits here, but that is one of many fears and objections companies have (thanks to MS lying FUD) about the GPL. They think that if they use GPL software and make some changes to the program that cause it to work a certain way in their own particular situation, that they will have to publish that, even if it contains details about their processes that they would like to keep secret.
Here is where I see a gray area to be clarified. Let's say Joe Hacker jr. decides to make a change for himself at home to a GPL program--tweaks his kernel or something. That's OK, and he's not required to publish that change. Well, being a good card-carrying computer geek, he doesn't just have one computer. Let's say he burns the changed file onto a CD and loads the changed version on a couple of other computers at his house. Is that "distribution"? If that is not "distribution", then what if it is three computers in a small business?
Think carefully about this because I think it is a real issue. If you make another personal copy of a modified program, is that "distribution"? If any FSF people are reading this, maybe you could shed some light on this, or forward it to Stallman & Co. for some clarification.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
" That doesn't mean it's accepted the GPL by the act of distributing the software, if it has no knowledge of the GPL" .."
Copyright law says exactly this - If I create a work, I own the rights to it automatically, and no one can copy it, even if they don't know it's mine. The law does not require that I put a notice in my code in order for my ownership of that code to be protected.
".. am in breach of contract for not paying for it.
A recent discussion by someone else put it this way: If I own some land on a river, I can grant you and everyone else the right to fish from the bank that I own (and even charge for it). I can impose restrictions such as "Not on Tuesday and NO LIGHT BEER!".
As the GPL says, if you don't like my rules, you don't have to accept them, but my terms are the only terms that grant you permission to fish from my land.
That's the difference between a contract and a license: The GPL is a license becuz the (C) owner holds all the cards - the licensee does not get the chance to "agree", any more than you get the chance to "agree" to my prohibition of light beer on my property.
The GPL can "force" someone to license their derivation modifications under the GPL for one of two reasons: Either you're distributing something I own (my original code) with something you own (your modifications), or because, as the original copyright owner, I control the rights to the creation of derivative works (such as a "Star Wars" cartoon on TV). You can only start with my stuff when creating something new if I grant you the right.
As the mods go forth: "JetScootr" becomes "JetSkater" (derivative 1), which becomes "RocketSkater" (Derivative 2) becomes "BlasterSkateboard" (derivative 3), my rights as the original owner ensure that as my parts of the work are distributed, I still control my part of it, and thus, my restrictions on the part of it I created are inviolate.
As my example implies, "derivation" is a matter of (judicial) interpretation, and decisions vary widely. Assuming the judge can be convinced that the following works are derivations, my rights to control the licensing of what I own in them is assured.
"While someone distributing software without permission is in breach of copyright, it's different to distributing software in breach of the GPL"
No, "distributing without permission" is a copyright violation, regardless of what other rights the copyright owner chooses to grant. The other terms of the license are irrelevant - if you don't have permission to distribute, then it's a violation to distribute, period.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Point well taken, often times when I'm talking about free software I say open source, and vice versa. However, what I meant to say in the paper is that both share a common bond... open source would not be possible without the concept of free software. Free software came first, and influenced the open source movement.
In linux libertas
The room in which I had to present only had an XP system with office installed. I couldn't use open office. However, I should have made a pdf from the power point to appease all you nit pickers out there :)
In linux libertas
The GPL is not a contract as the author tries to show. It is a license. It is not signed by either party and one doesn't even have to read it in order to rip off source code from a GPL program. I can download the source code for thousands of programs from sourceforge and not even read the license file. Even after I read it, I can understand it. By using the source code, you are not agreeing to the license as if you signed a contract, but the only thing that gives you the right to use a GPL program is that license. People that steal GPL code are software "pirates", pure and simple. They are using the copyrighted works of another without their permission.
Not "free software" (which implies lack of monetary worth), but "Free software" (which is meant to imply "free" as in "freedom" - thus, you, the original poster of the article, may need to explain this in your paper).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
As soon as you take advantage of the right to distribute the software, you have agreed to the copyright owner's terms under the GPL, even if you haven't read the license. There is an agreement between two parties that results from this transaction. Both parties benefit, and hopefully the purpose is legal. If that doesn't fit the definition of a "contract" than I guess I don't know what the word "contract" means.
In linux libertas
I've always found it fascinating that the FSF does not distribute it's writings under the GPL, but instead keeps them under copyright.
More FSF propaganda. The Open Source movement did exist. That it did not have a name at the time is irrelevent. "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" refer to exactly the same concept from only a very slight difference in perspective. That concept was not invented by RMS. He does not hold a patent on the idea that software should be unencumbered. He was merely the first person to try to formalize a definition of that concept.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It seems to me that the requirements would be satisfied by putting the source code on any machine on which you also place the binary, or by placing the source code on a machine accessible by those machines on which the binary is placed, but not necessarily accessible by the outside world.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
This means that the original author could sue those making derivative copies to force them to release their source code changes.
They can't.
All they can do now is sue them to prevent them from continuing to use the code.
For example, if I were to release source code under a license that gave me your house, and you used the source code, I could not sue you later on and try to take your house; all that I could do is sue you for copyright infringement.
If we had an actual signed contract (or even a signed license agreement), I could sue you for breach of contract/license and try to take your house.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Why couldn't you have used OO? It saves to powerpoint just fine, which would work on the XP machine you had to use.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
GPL code is protected by copyright law, and if someone is using another's code against their wishes, they are violating the author's copyright. They are breaking the law and it is punishable by heavy fines and jail time.
OK, that sounds like a good solution. That would probably satisfy a company's concerns about "publishing" the modified source.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
I find PDFs to be not much nicer really. They're still an awful lot of bloat when it comes to getting a simple point across.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
In fact, from www.fsf.org: Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Um. That's not Creative Commons (Which requires the Creative Commons tag), It's straight copyright. The modified rights statement makes it *look* like CC, but with a key difference. A CC cannot be revoked or changed, but a straight copyright of this nature can be at any time.
I should have said "Creative Commons-like", my bad. As for being revokable, it's no more or less revokable than any other license. You can't retract permission after the fact with any license, and you can retract any license at any time. The Creative Commons license is just a formalization.
Over a hundred comments and this is the first 'IANAL' I've seen yet.
I was wondering...
Cogito, ergo sig.
Why would you use the word "utilize" in your opening sentence? It's a horrible word. Say "use" instead.
The author of a GPL licensed work retains copyright.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!