Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Licensing
This has been a particular headache for embedded systems manufacturers. If the engineers take advantage of the openness of Linux and make some tweaks to the part that is officially Linux, the company must to distribute their changes too. If they merely create software that works like a regular program, then there's no need to distribute anything. (Notice the ASP in the URL!) I know at least one very sharp businessman who explained to me how he carefully made sure the proprietary code in his system would only be dynamically linked to the GPL-protected code. If he left things statically linked, he would be legally bound to release all of his code and his investors wouldn't allow that.
"You had to work with developers. We had to create a build process that very carefully keeps things separate. If we weren't able to do that, we wouldn't have been acquired," he told me.
Rosen's book is a guide for anyone who's trying to walk that line. It dissects the major (GPL, BSD, Netscape, Apache, etc.) as a lawyer would: this kind of legal writing is always eye opening for me ,because the courts often make decisions differently from programmers. They value abstract issues like damages and pay attention to the often nebulous concept of who "owns" a piece of code. Thanks to the hard work of the lawyers at SCO, the distinctions will continue to be important to everyone experimenting with open source.
There are a surprisingly large number of distinctions, both big and small, between the different licenses. For most of us, the differences don't matter. But it's fascinating to watch a lawyer take them apart and compare and contrast them. The BSD license and the Apache license aren't the same, even though they're close cousins. Who would have known?
This book is a wonderful start on the topic. But by the end, it's clear that it's only just the beginning. There are deep philosophical questions awaiting the movement. The distinction between statically and dynamically linked code was easier to define in the past, long before modern languages like Java and the emergence of the Internet. Are web services specified by a hard-coded WSDL file, an example of dynamic or static linking? Can the DNS service change a static IP address into a dynamic link? Enquiring minds want to know. Rosen's book is a great way to begin the exploration of these topics.
You can purchase Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
How he starts off the review saying essentially that nobody who isn't a lawyer should need this book.
I'm a developer; I know all I need to about OS development and the licenses.
I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood
His Trademark law article and his explanation of fair use seem particularly useful.
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
Should be really good for hacking through all those briars...
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
I do try and ponder the deep stuff when I sit on the porcelain alter.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you take your Free Software licensing quiz today?
Thank you for discussing this book. I will be sure to check it out.
p 2004/tc20040922_8372_tc024.htm With that, we can expect to see more and more proprietary software vendors who are feeling the heat of open source competition to stretch the very limits of any contract or license agreement.
I think that in the not-too-distant future, this kind of legal knowledge will be a bit of a prerequisite. This is especially true as awareness of the value of open source continues to spread, and more and more companies and people turn to open source as a cost effective tool. Check out "No More Stock" at this page: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/se
Knowing the legal limits *as a court would interpret them* will be crucial for open source developers world wide.
Get some.
IANAL is a great acronym, but we need a new one for situations like this. I'm thinking it ought to be IANYL - I am not your lawyer.
Reading a law-talking book can be enough for some things, like getting out of a parking ticket or releasing a very simple piece of software. But it's not a substitute for having your own lawyer.
Just because something's properly GPL'd doesn't mean it's sue-proof, and there's a lot more to litigation than just the substantive law at issue.
John Hancock wuz here.
I know that law is all hard and stuff (why else would we keep using IANAL?) but I would watch out for any hacker turned laywer...
Aren't most hackers just people that are awesome at looking at a system and finding its weaknesses? So what is keeping him from finding a way to do anything he wants. Maybe nothing...
Normally I think we should be wary of lawyers and of hackers, but a hacker turned lawyer... WATCH OUT!
of course, I could just be using a outdated, preconcieved notion to judge someone that is doing good for us all
Like tests? Get paid to take them...
This is completely false. This is not a sig.
From the writeup:
/usr/src/linux directory on the web? Hell no.
If the engineers take advantage of the openness of Linux and make some tweaks to the part that is officially Linux, the company must to distribute their changes too.
Actually thats not true. You don't have to distribute code if you aren't distributing the kernel. (or program, or whatever). Does the person who has patches his sources, for example when testing for the linux kernel for the developers, have to publish his
Under GPL, if you distribute your code outside your own use (ie, internal use), your contributions are given back to the community so someone else may enhace your work, etc.
I think that is more or less right.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
<paraphrase>But I'm more than a little frustrated that a book like $foo For Dummies is necessary. It speaks volumes about the current state of computing. The reason computers are complex is that big corporations who have no interest in their users' needs and programmers are too lazy and inconsiderate to create simple, flexible interfaces that Aunt Tillie can pick up in five seconds flat.</paraphrase>
Seriously, exactly how does the fact that non-lawyers need a book on the application of the law to open source issues lead to the conclusion that the law is unnecessarily complex? By the same reasoning, physics is unnecessarily complex because you need an engineering degree to get a good understanding of how Newton's laws govern the behaviour of real-world systems.
Law is like mathematics: you have a set of basic principles that are fairly simple on their own, but which need to be developed into quite complex structures in order to be useful in a large number of situations. In this example, the basic principle is: the person who creates the code has the right to say how it's used. The complexity comes simply from the fact that lots of people are involved and the law gives them all a say in how their work should be used.
Simplicity is a fine thing, but over-simplification should be considered harmful.
I find I prefer to release my latest code as 'free'. When I mean free, it is free for whoever to do whatever they want with it - and totally free of any licence or other restrictions. I dislike everything about the idea of a licence to use software/data (sourcecode is just data to the compiler) and that's why I choose to make my things available free.
Since the courts, congress, bush, and big business are on the controlling side, and those of us that are creative and support GPL (and possibly other nearly fully free licenses) are mainly on the other side, the forces at work are not really in balance. The current SCO vs IBM case is truly indicative of that. There will be many battles, but ultimately, the forces of freedom will have to prevail.
Why, you ask? Because, if the rights to be creative are taken away, then there is no reason for the species known as homo sapiens to exist.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
With the way things are going in the lawsuit department lately, it seems this is kinda needed. Tho it has always been hard to explain to the buisiness world the concept of gpl style license agreements.
Tho, i do disagree 100% with the idea that developers do not need to be concerned with the legal side of this argument (from above posts), more and more do we find ourselves as developers in the spotlight when something is not 100% up to snuff. More knowledge isnt really a bad thing.
We have to keep having this conversation as long as there are people and software and licenses.
About a month or two ago I got an interesting email. One particular project wanted to incorporate some of my code into theirs. My code was under the BSD license and theirs under the GPL. No problem, right? Not to them! Their email was to beg me to release my software under the GPL so that they could use it. Needless to say that a short paragraph and a few good links on GPL "compatibility" cleared up the confusion. But this has not been the first time I've received an email like this.
A need for this kind of book exists.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Just because something's properly GPL'd doesn't mean it's sue-proof, and there's a lot more to litigation than just the substantive law at issue.
/*insert bad thing happening here*/, not the terms you released it under.
Well, it will help protect you by helping you become more sue-proof for licensing reasons than you would be by not reading the book. Of course it may not be as effective in a theoretical loss-of-life situation (in a country where someone can successfully sue for spilling hot coffee on their own lap, anything can happen). But in those types of situations, your choice of license is moot; the actual product is being held responsible for
You're right, though, nothing is a substitute for a good lawyer for some things.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Seems that OS may have other ramifications!5 0,39131082,00.htm
From http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,390246
"solicitor, Nick Abrahams today revealed he was in pre-court negotiations to defend a legal case in which a large IT company was attempting to use provisions of the open source General Public License to force his client to reveal its proprietary code."
I've submitted this as news (twice) yet it doesn't appear to be getting posted.......
The current SCO mess has nothing to do with the inherent complexity of copyright law or open source licenses. SCO is merely taking advantage of the fact that you can sue anyone for anything regardless of merit. You can indulge in legal harassment just by filing some papers with the local courthouse.
You don't need a convoluted contract.
You don't need convoluted laws.
You don't need confusing caselaw.
You don't need a confusing license.
The SCO shenanigans have gone on long enough simply because that's how long civil cases take to sort themselves out. This gives SCO plenty of time to shoot it's mouth off.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, with IT jobs cut or outsourced to India, and legal battles about 'intellectual property' (damn, that phrase annoys me more and more) on the rise, that sounds like a solid career move. If you're in it for the money, that is.
Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere.
Law is man made and is arbitrarily complex. It could be simple, but for some reason, even though it is defined by man, it isn't. On the other hand, physics is defined by observable natural phenomenon. There is no known way to make it simpler. There's a huge difference.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
...businesses trying to honor the rules...
These words don't make any sense together.
Garbage.
Your analysis is completely bogus for one very simple reason: neither physics nor mathematics are wholly under human control. Those are observations. The law is artificial from square one. It doesn't need to be complex. Tax law? Institute a flat tax. Copyright law? Redefine intellectual property in a more reasonable manner.
"You have a set of basic principles that are fairly simple on their own, but which need to be developed into quite complex structures in order to be useful in a large number of situations"
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Complex structures are specifically created to apply a basic principle in a special way. Principles that are useful in large numbers of situations are necessarily BROAD and SIMPLE principles.
"Seriously, exactly how does the fact that non-lawyers need a book on the application of the law to open source issues lead to the conclusion that the law is unnecessarily complex?
Because the law is something we should all be able to understand, because we all must abide by it. I may not understand all the nuances of gravitic formulae, but insofar as they affect me they are quite simple to understand. Programmers shouldn't need to have an advanced degree in law (or a book like this) to earn their living programming. If the law as it applies to them requires two PhDs and a night class, then it is too complicated. Period.
Yes, same goes for tax codes and any other law you want to come up with. The system is broken and the lawyers are cashing in. I shouldn't need the approval of the Bar Association to have a valid opinion about the way the government should and shouldn't interfere in my life.
Everyone has to obey they law, for which knowledge is a prerequisite.
Not everyone needs to know about the details of computing or physics, but not knowing one tiny detail of the law can catch you unaware and have a serious impact.
As soon as you use that phrase, you are assuming a specific interpretation of the 3 legal constructs. Those of us who reject that particular interpretation are automatically locked out of the discussion, which I suspect is the purpose of the phrase.
What Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks do is impose a 'temporary monopoly' onto something intellectual that otherwise would not have limits. The nature of the monopoly may be different (Is it for an exact 'copyable' work of art such as an audio/visual work, or writing....is is a process where the words/diagrams used to describe the process are not critical, but the process is ... or is it part of a virtual identity), and
the time limits may be different, but the phrase "temporary monopoly" is
the essence of these legal structures.
If we can't start from that basis, then there is no way to have the discussion without quickly breaking down. The metaphor of property just does not make sense outside of physical objects as ideas are infinitely copyable, and can be spontaneously created ("thought of") in different places and time in isolation from each other. With physical objects there is a natural monopoly: the land, animal, person, object or whatever physical object can only exist in one place at any given time, and in the world outside of science fiction and magic do not just "appear out of thin air".
Creating an arbitrary legal limit on how something can be copied is clearly government intervention in the natural world to create a monopoly. Who benefits from that monopoly, and what the costs are, and how these things have changed over time can be brought up to interpretation and debate, but the basic concept behind the government granted temporary monopoly cannot be debated.
AdsJunction.com Ad Network
You could also make the claim that an operating system or programming language is arbitrarily complex. This is true, but in most cases those systems have been adapted to try and provide the best and simplest possible solutions for their respective problem domains. So it is also with law: the conficts created in modern human communities are complicated, and the law that governs those communities and tries to resolve those conflicts is also complicated.
Your claim that physics is defined by observable natural phenomenon is also only partially true. Physics is also defined by the models used to analyze and predict the behaviour of physical systems. The model has been improved over the years, e.g. with the invention of calculus or topology or other novel mathematical techniques, sometimes making physics simpler than previously thought possible.
The statement that there is no known way to make physics simpler could therefore apply equally well to law, and leads on to my own view on the matter: finding new and better ways to solve problems with formal or semi-formal systems is hard, and maybe impossible in some cases. The parent poster's assertion that law is overly complicated due to malice, incompetence, or recklessness is unjustified on the basis of the evidence he provided to support it.
Your assertion that law could be simpler is just that, an assertion, and you haven't bothered to support it with fact or logic. In respect of some areas of law I agree with it, in others I don't. Convince me.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL15a.pdf
Basicall y, there is no solid legal way to do what you are trying to do.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Of course it may not be as effective in a theoretical loss-of-life situation (in a country where someone can successfully sue for spilling hot coffee on their own lap, anything can happen).
;-)
It is rather ironic that you make a case of being informed and properly prepared when you repeat the common misconception of that coffee case.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
The main thing managers have to somehow learn is "if it is legal to do something with copyrighted code, it is legal to do it under the GPL".
GPL is a set of exceptions to standard copyright law. It says "if you do this, you can violate the copyright on this code".
It is amazing how few PHB's understand this. If you put a piece of code in that says "Copyright me, all rights reserved" they have not problem, and say "we'll replace that or ask for permission before we distribute". But put some GPL code in, or even link to an LGPL library, and they get all nervous and scared that somehow they will lose the entire company! That is just incredibly stupid, it is in fact safer than plain copyright, by definition!
One particular project wanted to incorporate some of my code into theirs. My code was under the BSD license and theirs under the GPL. No problem, right?
Could be common curtesy. Could be misunderstandings. Not really redundant. Much easier to have everybody's concerns satisfied early that later.
Using your good name to promote my garbage has to be a no-no. The precise phrasing required depends on the times, the culture, the context and probably gives rise to a multitude of inscrutable licenses trying to figure out where to draw the lines. Failure to give you credit, or doing something that implies that your stuff is under a different license than it is, is another no-no.
While they were obviously fairly ignorant, it is nice that they thought to ask your permission. I'm a GPL-nut myself (everything I write, essentially, gets released under the GPL) but I have noticed that lots of BSD folks get upset when their code is relicensed by other free software projects. They'll always agree to it, if you ask (at least, they have in my experience, and anyway, they can't really say no, legally) but it's still the polite thing to do.
At the very least, it'll make the dev happy that someone out there thinks his code is worth copying.
PS. I think the reason that BSD types get upset over free software relicensing (rather than proprietary relicensing) is because they are "competing" as it were in the free software sphere. When someone takes BSD code proprietary, they're taking it out of the pool. The BSD dev doesn't know what happens to it after that and so it's hard to worry about it. Contrast this to a GPLification, where the GPL'd version might (for one reason or another) get more mindshare than the BSD version and eclipse the original, with valuable bugfixes and improvements in plain sight of the original dev and yet completely out of reach for legal reasons. That having been said, when I use BSD code, any changes I make to that code (in the form of bugfixes or whatever) I'll be happy to provide under the BSD to devs that would like them. But unfortunately many GPL-types aren't so nice.
I know at least one very sharp businessman who explained to me how he carefully made sure the proprietary code in his system would only be dynamically linked to the GPL-protected code. If he left things statically linked, he would be legally bound to release all of his code and his investors wouldn't allow that.
Hmmm, according to my reading of the GPL FAQ, even dynamically linking creates a derivative work, and thus all of the code would need to be under the GPL. No?
In my case it was partly common courtesy, but mostly a misunderstanding. I don't want to make the text of that email public because it's not my place to do so, but it was very clear that the requestors thought it was legally necessary to have my code under the GPL before they could use it.
I'm not blaming these people at all. Nor am I trying to ridicule them in any way. I am merely pointing out that there is great confusion over licensing, and thus the necessity for this book.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It is rather ironic that you make a case of being informed and properly prepared when you repeat the common misconception of that coffee case. ;-)
:^)
Blah blah blah I read that story at least on three different occasions.
The laywers may say it's a good case, but I always say "Don't hold hot coffee in your lap." I myself spilled scalding coffee on my lap. I did not sue, but I think I learned a valuable lesson in life that I carry with me to this very day.
This very day, I tell you!
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
While there are certainly some BSD types that get all upset when someone places their code under the GPL, they're not all that common. Most of us don't really care... with one exception. There have been cases where "GPL-types" have taken BSD licensed code and relicensed it under the GPL just because they didn't like the BSD license. Not only is this a violation of the BSD license, but it's quite rude.
Oh, and to correct a point. You may not "relicense" any BSD licensed software. The terms of the license do not permit it. You may not "file off" the BSD texts and replace them with the GPL. However, you may redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. So in actual practice it doesn't make that much difference.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I am merely pointing out that there is great confusion over licensing, and thus the necessity for this book.
Amen, brother.
No ridicule involved. If you look hard enough, it is impossible to not become confused. If you remember when daylight savings time came into being, if you think about it long enough and hard enough, you will get it wrong.
"For most open source software users, there are few things as easy to understand or follow as an open source license.
/..
When I read this, I laughed so hard I nearly fell out of my chair. Just consider, if you will, how many completely misguided and contradictory views of the GPL you've seen/heard recently, even right here on
Most open source users have no friggin' clue what the exact rights and restrictions are under the GPL or other popular OSI-listed licences (the BSD/MIT variants being a possible exception, since they contain almost no restrictions to begin with). That doesn't keep them from having an opinion and loudly expressing it, of course...
THis case has exposed the ugly underbelly of the American legal system to geeks like me. It's been two years and a date for trial hasn't even been set yet!.
When I write code I test it. I throw random and unexpected input at my code to see if it breaks and if it does I fix it.
The americal legal system is also code isn't it? What would happen if you throw 1000 perfectly innocent people into the legal system? How many of them would come out of it? How many would go broke in the process? How many would lose thier jobs or families in the process? Would it make a difference if they were black or hispanic or arab? I think we all know the answer to this question and the answer is ugly and sad.
Why hasn't anybody tested the legal code like we test programs?
evil is as evil does
that's pretty much the definition of 'public domain'. Except with public domain, you get no say at all about what is done with your code later, so if you don't want it to be used by someone else under license, too bad for you, you should have used a real license of your own. Legally, either anyone can do whatever they want with it including relicensing, or you need to use a license which lets you retain some rights over the work. If that's what you meant, then you may as well call it public domain.
Mathematics is a pure science as we define "1 + 1 = 2" and say it is so. Modern physics is reaching the limits of naturally observable phenomena and are resorting to backward calculations from theories to prove things . (ok, prove "E=MC2" ... the theory came before nuclear bombs and fission). Right now - Physics is Mathematics , but one which tries to predict rather than explain what natural phenomena happens in an atom smasher. Maybe we'll finally know the mind of God (as Stephen Hawking is fond of saying).
But, yeah - Law is convoluted and keeps getting convoluted with each new loophole being plugged. It's come a long way from an eye for an eyeQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
You forgot to close the tag!
</paraphrase>
Bash corporations as much as you want they usually deserve it, but this isn't one of those times.
They have every right to be upset. The BSD license, like most software licenses, does not allow for relicensing. You must ask the legal owner of the copyright(s) on the software if you can change the terms under which it is distributed.
They aren't taking it out of the pool. The original, unmodified code is still in the pool for anybody to use as they see fit. Rather than taking something out of the pool, these people are merely failing to put more water into the pool.
That is certainly the right of anybody making changes to a BSD license code base. They have every right to ADD the GPL restrictions to their works (but the original BSD license must remain). It is somewhat rude, and ill mannered, however, to make such a change. The folks that wrote the BSD license code wanted to offer maximum flexibility to the licensee. This even includes the flexibiltiy to contaminate with GPL'd code. These contamination can cause a lot of problems because it can sometimes be hard to know that patches posted somewhere to BSD licensed code contain these GPL contaminations. This is a bad thing about both licenses, btw.
Again to reiterate: only the copyright holder can change the license on his/her copyrighted works. In general, derived works can only have additional licenses added (all of which must be obeyed).
The difference is that you can't get thrown in jail for not knowing the laws of physics. To know every law, regulation and ordinance of the place in which you live (ranging from county, state and national laws) is quite impossible; yet the law assumes that everybody knows and understands all the laws - ignorance is no excuse, etc. This is helped a little by the fact that many laws can be intuited based on simple principles, such as the right to life, right to property, right to be safe in one's person, etc. But, and this is increasingly the case, many cannot be extrapolated from such rights.
If the law is formulated in such a way that Joe Blow needs a degree to understand it, how can the law enforcers expect people to follow it? As Tacitus says, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws".
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
But it's not a substitute for having your own lawyer.
I want my own lawyer. Renting one is simply too expensive.
How big a cage does one need, and how often does it have to be fed?
Well, not knowing the laws of physics can even cause your death. Of course, fortunately you generally know enough about the laws of physics so you don't just jump out of the window in the 100th floor.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Rosen disagrees with FSF on many points -- specifically, whether dynamically linking creates a derivative work. And since FSF's lawyer is a law professor and Rosen is a two-bit hack, you should think twice about listening to Rosen. Incidentally, MySQL's lawyers also disagree with Rosen -- and have gone to court to defend the GPL.
The key point here, especially from a business point of view, is regular. A key principle of legal thought is that law should operate the same for two sets of "the same" circumstances - two people in the same situation situation should have equivalent treatment. This would make life predictable (as opposed to the arbitrary nature of life under previous (i.e. before liberal-democratic) systems). Of course, interpreting exactly what this means in a particular circumstances is no simple task - after all, as was pointed out, how do we treat new technologies like Web Services? Is this static or dynamic linking?
The only practical way to make law "predictable" for the average user (by user I mean non-lawyer) is to understand what the precedents thus far are, to lay out the current "state of play". This means taking a set of principles worked out in different places (contracts, court cases, etc) over a period of time and summarising them in one place for easy reference.
As I said before, expecting law to be simple is like expecting human interactions, or history, to be simple. Its just not going to happen. :)
p.s. another analogy: programs become complex because of the interaction between many rules of action - each might in itself be simple (click this button to run this function), but the result sure as hell isn't. Same thing - programs are defined by humans, and while there are ways to make it simpler, it inevitably gets complex over time. (And remember, legal systems are very rarely refactored - to do so too often would be to introduce arbitrariness, and remove the quality that two people in the same circumstance are treated the same way)
So, you're saying that the activities of the human animal over a period of millenia don't count as observable natural phenomena?
Law is man made, yes. But its basis is the idea that there should be a common set of principles to which any man can look in order to determine if his actions are considered by those with whom he must live to be within tolerable limits. The problem is that not every man is capable of fully comprehending such principles, just as surely as not every man can comprehend string theory. That's why we have lawyers as well as theoretical physicists.
Law may not be rocket science, but it is most certainly science.
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
NOT anyone.
... to any third party...". Illegal clause in the GPL (wheras the EULA stipulations may merely not be legal).
A third party means that if you give a second party a product with a GPL binary used on it, you must let them know that there is GPL code in the product and let them know how to get a copy of the code. If that second party wants to give that code to a third party, you *cannot* stop them.
Compare that to most EULA's - "You may not copy, lend
Effectively, then the "third party" is the second of your intepretations. Anyone who uses the GPL program must be able to get the code. Either from you or from the second party (the first party from their point of view).
Law is man made and is arbitrarily complex. It could be simple, but for some reason, even though it is defined by man, it isn't.
There is often a good reason why things are more complex that it intuitively seems they need to be.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat - and wrong" - HL MenckenNow, not to say all laws are as simple as they could be, and there is no uneccessary complexity. However, law is not complex for some arbitary reason, but becuase people and their interations are complex and messy, and it has to work in the real wold.
It shouldn't take an 8 year degree to understand your rights. Throwing latin and difficult wording into the mix is not conducive to self-defense. I'll quote a post I saw on here a long time ago that I saved because it was a really good rant:
What kind of judicial system allows laws and documentation that require advanced degrees to even understand? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, shouldn't law have to be written in understandable language. And don't give me any bullshit about $10 words being required in order to make the law more specific, 'cause that is complete bunk. I've seen enought technical documentation to know that it is possible to be clear, conscise and understandable all at the same time. All the bullshit rhetoric in patent applications and on the lawbooks are there simply to confuse the masses and make them hire lawyers.
Why can't we elect some judges that will let people off because the law isn't in English (or other native language as it may apply) instead of some twisted, latinesque, lawyerese? For instance, this judge should simply rule that noone can infringe on this patent, because an average person would need weeks to understand what the fuck it means.
The deal is that they should try harder to make the law more understandable. Law effects everyone, no matter what. You could make it through life not understanding calculus, but you'd be hard pressed to make it through without needing the law at some point. Having a 'law' is fine. Having 'laws' that are derived from others is fine. Where I draw the line is where you have a condition where you stand no chance of understanding the entirety of personal limitations without a degree, or at least years of personal study. Make it more accessable is all I'm saying.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
This book violates the GPL. If anyone who has a copy or has read the book, I suggest carefully reviewing his discussion of the GPL. He is referencing paragraphs of the GPL that are not in the appended version of the GPL. This violates the GPL.
Law is defined by government. Government adds thousands of new laws every year, becuase it benefits those in power (just as any expansion of government does). There is the simple reason why law is arbitrarily complex.
Oh, and to correct a point. You may not "relicense" any BSD licensed software. The terms of the license do not permit it. You may not "file off" the BSD texts and replace them with the GPL. However, you may redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. So in actual practice it doesn't make that much difference.
No, but from what I have understood a derivative work of a BSD work can be dual licenced under BSD/GPL. In practice, that means the GPL. And since you can trivially create a "derivate" (look mom, I added whitespace) you can, for all intents and purposes make it GPL. You just can't remove the original licence.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you wish to dream, feel free.. However, the fact of the matter is that is is a hostile climate and the legalese, whilst not seemingly emininent, presents a clear threat to creativity and productivity in the technology sectors. I have yet to read this book but I bet my bottom dollar he's got some tips and tricks and pointers that could be very usefull for small software companies and free-lance devellopers/consultants. I assume that is an important audience here on /. and hence most appreciate the posting.
Books like this may help to prevent problems like SCO and more recently Mambo by making sure everyone is (more) clear on the rules of the game. We all know that leaving a store without paying for the can of beer in your hand is a no no, however in the land of Open Source it may not be so black and white to the uninitiated/uninformed and hence such publications and the resulting discussions/blogs may raise awareness. And that is ,IMHO, always a good thing.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
You might also be interested in a different GPL loophole, which can be be used in a similar situation with a leased device.
GPL section 3 enumerates three ways to comply with the requirement that recipients of the program are able to get it's source code: either you include the source code, or you include an offer for the source code.
The trick a manufacturer can use is request his programmers NOT to include an offer for the source when they compile. Instead, attach the full source code to each executable program. Install that program on all of the hardware you plan to lease. Then (and only then) zero out the parts of the program that contain the source code (maybe overwrite some unrelated data on there, and call it a "space-saving measure")
That way, when the end-users renting the device run the program, they don't have the source code there with them, and they don't get an offer to get the code, either.
(Of course, this trick can be used even without the rented hardware involved. It is more generally called the "Fair Use" GPL loophole)
On FAQ claims that using a program throughout a large organization is not distribution, when obviously that can't happen without someone "passing copies around".
They should remove that FAQ, because if it were actually true, the GPL would have a loophole so large as to be essentially PD.
The reason there is a FAQ is that people don't understand the concept of a juridical entity. All copies belong to the company, so there is no transfer of rights from the company to their employees. All employees recieve and use the product as representatives of that legal entity.
ASPs are already considered a loophole, since they can create proprietary improvements, but never release them as they never distribute their changes. This is a tricky one though, as it might be reasonable to request a web host ASPs modified apache source, but requesting their billing system because your payment was processed through it is probably not. Both were part of delivering you the service though.
A lease is a tricky one though. If employees are merely authorized to use the program, and not juridically recipients, would that not be the same for leasers? Imagine recieving a free, permanent, irrevocable lease. The lease agreement might be between two legal parties, but it doesn't involve transfer of the software. Just regulations on use, not unlike what an employer would have for his.
Or, if you can strike that down because the leaser is not part of the same legal entity, how about a company that offers "employment"? As an employee, you have a right to use these programs. The output is not bound by the GPL in any way, so if the "employee agreement" says that anything you create is your own, then... well?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
>Others write proprietary web applications and run them with a BSD-protected version of Apache
>running on top of a >GPL-protected version of Linux.
>If you stay on the right side of the lines, you're still Richard Stallman's best friend.
I don't think so, as Stallman feels proprietary software is 'immoral'.
Since this is under "Anonymous Coward," there is a pretty good chance nobody will read this, or nobody will believe me. Oh well.
Derivative work is a legal term, not a technical one. Dynamically linking doesn't protect you from copyright infringement if static linking would be considered copyright infringement.
The best-known case about this is Light House Ministries vs. Intellectual Reserve, Inc. In that case, Intellectual Reserve held the copyright to some work that Light House Ministries posted online without permission. IRI sued, and Lighthouse had to take the work down.
Then Light House posted a link to somebody else who infringed the work, and IRI sued again, and won. If it would have been illegal to post on the site itself, a hyperlink didn't change the legal implications. A pointer in code, or a dynamic link would be the same. Feel free to btich, if you like, but a judge is going to listen to another judge's opinion before listening to yours.
Linus Torvalds, who is not a lawyer, does recognize that if somebody writes code against a standard interface (eg., POSIX, ODBC, etc.), then it is pretty uch impossible to declare that code a derivative work of a particular GPLed program. This becomes an issue on Linux because some kernel modules written for other flavors of UNIX work on Linux without any changes. Since Linux didn't exist when those modules were designed, it would be pretty stupid to declare them derivative works of Linux.
> The laywers may say it's a good case, but I always say "Don't hold hot coffee in your lap." I myself spilled scalding coffee on my lap. I did not sue, but I think I learned a valuable lesson in life that I carry with me to this very day.
Heh, I completely agree, regardless of if the coffee was too hot, it is still simply stupid and asking for problems to hold a drink on your lap of which you simply know it is at least very warm (if not hot). A reason why even people who are aware of the case still point at it is similar to why quite a few people think that claims against tobaco companies are bullshit. (I disagree with them in part, but only for as far as it concerns those companies actually knowing their products were dangerous and trying to hide that. That should be dealt with, but it hardly gives individuals the right to sue them, get yourself informed damnit)
People supposedly have a brain and should be expected to use it and take some responsibility for their own behavior instead of tryign to blame others and sue.
That said, you'll have to live with a society in which things like that coffee case can happen, and as long as that is the case, you better keep it in mind.
I have no problems with others profiting from my work (if they can).
At least they asked, unlike what happened in this case
Turbo Smorgreff
GNU's embrace and extend (*cough*tar*cough*, *cough*bash*cough*) bad, BSD license good.
Turbo Smorgreff
The laywers may say it's a good case, but I always say "Don't hold hot coffee in your lap." I myself spilled scalding coffee on my lap. I did not sue, but I think I learned a valuable lesson in life that I carry with me to this very day.
So the coffee you split on your lap caused 3rd degree burns, hospitalized you, and required skin grafts? That coffee was at 180?F - 190?F. That temperature causes 3rd degree burns in just a couple seconds (and was considered by a manager "unfit for human consumption"). There's an exponential difference between the damage done by normal hot coffee (130?F - 140?F) and 180?F.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
Here is a link to over a thousand libraries licensed under the GPL (NOT the LGPL):
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=%2Blibrary§ion
no..he is citing the GPL which is perfectly valid under fair use laws. :
for more information see
1. Cranberg v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.,
756 F.2d 382, 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1260, 11 Media L. Rep. 2099, 5th Cir.(Tex.), Apr 01, 1985
2. Neal Publications v. F & W Publications, Inc.,
307 F.Supp.2d 928, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1137, N.D.Ohio, Feb 26, 2004
3. Yurman Design, Inc. v. Golden treasure Imports, Inc.,
275 F.Supp.2d 506, 2003 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,646, S.D.N.Y., Aug 05, 2003
4. Wagner v. Burkhart,
716 F.Supp. 304, N.D.Ohio, Feb 21, 1989
5. Philip Morris, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
641 F.Supp. 1438, 231 U.S.P.Q. 321, 1986-2 Trade Cases P 67,293, M.D.Ga., Aug 20, 1986
6. Rexnord, Inc. v. Modern Handling Systems, Inc.,
379 F.Supp. 1190, 183 U.S.P.Q. 413, D.Del., Jul 10, 1974
This makes me wonder strongly about the situation discussed in the review - dynamic linking vs. static linking wouldn't affect source disclosure requirements in any way; even if you statically link to an LGPL library, the only requirement then is that you provide the
If after reading this book, the reviewer came away with an impression of the implications of the GPL and LGPL that are radically at odds with what Richard Stallman has said after consulting with the FSF's lawyers, then I wonder about the book too.
The MIT License
Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders]
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
If someone distributes a stand-alone proprietary program that is designed to dynamically link to a GPL'd program, and does not distribute the GPL'd program, then, I think, there is no problem with the GPL.
However, if this same program is distributed in a collection containing the GPL'd program, then there is a problem: the GPL does not give permission to distribute the collection, since it is not a mere aggregation and contains a non-GPL'd program and a GPL'd program.
And since you can trivially create a "derivate" (look mom, I added whitespace)...
A common misconception. You must make a significant change to the original before it is a derivative work. You must ADD value to it. This cannot be done trivially. Adding whitespace is insufficient. On the other hand, merely compiling the source into a binary probably is sufficient, as it counts as translation.
In any case, if all you've done is add whitespace, then all I need to do is remove that whitespace and file off your GPL, because ONLY that whitespace is under the dual license. Everything else is still under the BSD license because everything else is still original.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Say I make an application MyApp, that uses LibFoo (a package released under the GPL); but LibFoo needs a few additions and a little tweaking to allow MyApp to use it.
Do I have to release the entire MyApp under the GPL, or just the changes I made to LibFoo?
i checked the link, maybe you want to check it too?
in the first page there are:
2 gpl'ed library automation programms
9 lgpl'ed libraries
6 programms/libraries under non-gpl licenses (BSD, mozilla etc.)
1 unmaintained gpl'ed python library
libstdc++ and
4 gpl'ed librariers i've never heard before.
You have a point though, if those four libraries aren't licensed under GPL for a purpose, their maintainers should be contacted.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
Don't even waste your time, FD. Society has villified Stella and will not hear reason or be persuaded by facts. Comfort yourself with the quiet irony that the canonical story that claims to be about frivolous lawsuits is actually one about continued corportate neglect and recklessness.
Bad management trumps ideology - Show the world you want better leadership. http://www.timefornewmanagement.com
Read the full story at my web page, http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html.
- Hubert
It shouldn't take an 8 year degree to understand your rights.
8 years? I got through law school in 3 years. The only reason it would take 8 is because in some places law is a graduate degree requiring admission to a non-law degree first, but if you say so...
Throwing latin and difficult wording into the mix is not conducive to self-defense.
So you never, ever use jargon in your professional life? Lawyers use obscure terms for the same reason as any other professional: economy of communication. There's no reason why the law cannot be explained in simple terms, but most lawbooks are written by professionals for other professionals. There are books and reference works available (usually through your local public library) that target the lay audience. Perhaps you should try those.
There are initiatives within the profession to try and make the law more accessible. Every time you see an interview on this site from a practitioner or academic lawyer is an example, and you can usually find a few legal education events you could attend if you look hard enough. The professional associations in your jurisdiction might be a good place to start.
And if you really want to make the law simpler, start lobbying your local politicians to stop constantly pumping out volumes of bloated, complicated legislation. Tell them to let the common law work its magic, or to at least sit down and think about what they want to do before rushing to legislate just so they can be seen to be doing something.
Since this is done on the user's system after distribution, you'd have a really hard time arguing that the GPL is even involved.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Yes, I do use jargon in my profession, because I have no choice. But my profession has nothing to do with restricting the natural rights of others (now computer rights, that's something else :) ).
Also, I suppose that if you are able to pass out of regular requirements of a standard university, then you could complete anything in 3 years. Law is tough (at least for me) because of the sheer amount of rote memorization needed. With things like math, or chemisrty, you have ways of derivating what you need. I'm no good at just memorizing tons and tons of stuff, like what Roe vs Wade was (if that even was a case) and what it meant, etc... And I'll stop the rambling here, long day at work an all...
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
] us poor "IANAL" types.
YOU ANAL? SO WHAT? FUCK u ASSFUCK