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. "
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!
Are the paper/presentation GPLed?!?!
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.
Creating a presentation on GPL Enforceability.... in Powerpoint.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
"Intel x86/Windows XP" would be an accurate description of what are otherwise known as "Wintel" systems; the combination of the Windows XP operating system with the Intel x86 hardware platform. (As opposed to an "AMD/Windows XP" system, for example.)
Similarly, "GNU/Linux" is an accurate description of a GNU system running on top of the Linux kernel. (As opposed to a "GNU/Hurd" system, or a "GNU/*BSD" system, or an embedded system running some proprietary software on top of the Linux kernel.)
Neither is an affront to any trademark. In fact misusing "Linux" to refer to the entire system rather than the kernel would be improper use of the trademark, something like calling all sodas "Coke" or all photocopiers "Xerox".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So...
GNU make available the main elements of an OS for free (or some useful helper utilities, make whatever distinction you want, it doesn't really matter for the purpose of my argument) and they request that you include them in the name of the OS.
Now, you have several choices.
Ethically "pure" ones:
* Gratefully use the software they've provided for free and agree to their modest request
* Decide that they're on a power trip and decline to use their software
Ethically slightly grey:
* Use their software, call it what you want anyway (probably most, er, "Linux" users)
Ungrateful:
* Use their software (given away for free!), call it what you want, and flame them in public for having the audacity to ask for a name modification
Ungrateful and annoying:
* As above, but also berate others for agreeing to their request (this is you, presumably!)
There is one other option, that of troll: don't use their software and flame them anyway - in which case why would you care what other people call it?
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
Anyone can summarize a few usenet posts and throw in enough filler and footnotes to make it 12 pages.
Yeah, but how many people can do that in Powerpoint? I mean, give the poor kid some credit, it's Powerpoint for cryin' out loud!
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
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.
There are other reasons to stop prepending things to the OS name, by the way...
My take on this : Stallman (who recently did a speech in my area, and didn't forget to tell us that ``GNU is the operating system and Linux is its kernel'' amongst other questionable things, like Open Source is not about freedom. He must have overlooked the Open Source Definition...) has seen the Linux OS gain lots of attention, and he's disgruntled people talk less about the GNU project. Still, he's wrong in thinking this causes problems for GNU or the FSF : quite to the contrary, the number of people that have started writing (or even hearing about) free software because of Linux has greatly helped the GNU project approach the goal of having a computing environment made only of free software. He should be grateful of this. Instead, he's obsessed with safeguarding a message he thinks is ``suppressed'' and churns out non-free licenses (like the GFDL) for this purpose (I'd be insterested in seeing only one occurrence of a distributor removing philosophical texts from the GNU documentations. I don't think this ever happened). That's sad, and not very positive, IMHO.
Xenu brings order!
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
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