The GPLv2 Goes To Court

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 15, 2014 @05:56AM from the laying-down-the-law dept.

Jason Baker writes Despite its importance, the GPLv2 has been the subject of very few court decisions, and virtually all of the most important terms of the GPLv2 have not been interpreted by courts. This lack of court decisions is about to change due to the five interrelated cases arising from a dispute between Versata Software, Inc. and Ameriprise Financial, Inc.. These cases are dealing with four important terms in the GPLv2: 1) What are the remedies for breach of the terms of the GPLv2? 2) What is a "distribution" under the GPLv2 that triggers the obligations under the GPLv2? 3) Does the GPLv2 include a patent license? 4) What type of integration between proprietary code and GPLv2 licensed code will result in creating a "derivative work" and subject such proprietary code to the terms of the GPLv2?

173 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Chirs · 2014-12-15 06:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

This would have been the perfect story to get covered there....
1. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it's times like these that PJ and Groklaw made the biggest impact. I miss her and the wonderful insightful and informative site that was Groklaw
2. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by thaylin · 2014-12-15 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  I miss my daily groklaw, I loved. I still think the reason she folded up was fairly silly.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
3. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  since when is wanting your live back silly ?
4. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by tanderson92 · 2014-12-15 07:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That is NOT why she folded up groklaw. See more at http://www.groklaw.net/article...
5. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2014-12-15 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually she tried to turn it over to someone else for a while. But the other person did not have her clarity in explaning the court document that PJ had and it was mostly her anyway.
  Yes it was taking alot of her time and she did it on her spare time. So I understand why she did not had time to continue to update it.
  There is a new site trying to do what PJ did - but missing her brilliance it's a very small site which not many visit:
  http://grokthelaw.freeforums.net/ but anyone who wants to, is welcome to help.
  
  --
  Just saying it like it are.
6. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by greg1104 · 2014-12-15 07:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Groklaw folded mainly due to e-mail privacy concerns. PJ wanting more of her personal time back was a factor, as she'd tried to back away from the site a few times already. But it wasn't the main stated reason for the shutdown. I could understand that some people feel e-mail privacy was a silly reason to fold the site, even if I don't agree myself.
7. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by gbjbaanb · 2014-12-15 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  You'd think she could come back for this one-off Christmas special edition. Finding out what the legally-enforceable terms and conditions of the GPL are in court is of principal importance to the whole open source software community (and the proprietary one too!)
8. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by hairyfeet · 2014-12-15 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  After she went on a rant about how Psystar was secretly a "M$" plot to destroy the GPL? Honestly I don't see how anybody could take anything she said seriously after that. I guess too many years of SCO turned her from reporter to tinfoil hatter but after that it didn't matter what it was she was gonna play 6 degrees of M$, kind of like how old Twitter could link everything from global warming to asteroid impacts to Bill Gates.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
9. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 12:40 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Not silly for him/her, because it could have exposed him/her as the paid IBM shill that he/she was.
10. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Hi there, SCO shill.
11. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Tinfoil hatter. Ha. Because the government loves you. You're special.
12. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2014-12-16 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  She didn't quit because it was time consuming or because her collaborator wasn't precise enough. She quit because she can't communicate securely:
  
  The owner of Lavabit tells us that he's stopped using email and if we knew what he knew, we'd stop too.
  There is no way to do Groklaw without email. Therein lies the conundrum.
  
  --
  -- Don't Tase me, bro!
13. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Aighearach · 2014-12-16 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is totally nonsense. It is not factually reasonable. A) there is no need for secure communications B) she could use encryption if she was worried about it C) she said in her rage-quit essay that it was listening to the lavabit guy that made her decide to do it as a protest. It was a protest, not some actual real-life need that was violated or prevented.
  Groklaw wasn't wikileaks or anything like it, never had their communications interrupted, and didn't need email that is secure to a higher standard than the business world needs.
14. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2014-12-16 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  You claim you can "just encrypt" your email, but it was the creator of lavabit, the "secure" email system that Snowden used, who stated essentially that email can NOT be made secure. It's not just a technology problem. When Secret Courts tell citizens they can't talk about Secret Orders, "encryption" isn't the solution. It's not just what you're saying, but with whom your talking to (e.g. metadata).
  You may not agree with that, but you can't declare that no one else can believe it. You can read PJ's statement for yourself. You may not believe her, but you can't look into her heart and know that the reason she gave wasn't sincere:
  
  My personal decision is to get off of the Internet to the degree it's possible. I'm just an ordinary person. But I really know, after all my research and some serious thinking things through, that I can't stay online personally without losing my humanness, now that I know that ensuring privacy online is impossible. I find myself unable to write. I've always been a private person. That's why I never wanted to be a celebrity and why I fought hard to maintain both my privacy and yours.
  
  --
  -- Don't Tase me, bro!
15. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Marillion · 2014-12-16 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I suspected it was last straw. She was looking for an excuse.
  That said, however, lawyers in good standing enjoy a legal privilege of being able to discuss matters with clients in confidence and be able to withhold those discussion from the government. If you can't communicate privately the privilege is eviscerated.
  Perhaps she wasn't so much worried about herself than the confidential sources she used?
  
  --
  This is a boring sig
16. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Optali · 2014-12-17 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed.
  The site was instrumental during the European fight against software patents back in 2004... Ah, the good old times :_)
  
  --
  -- 29A the number of the Beast
17. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Aighearach · 2014-12-17 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  She wasn't using confidential sources, and she wasn't a lawyer. She was a retired paralegal who was publishing the legal filings for tech-related cases,(starting with the SCO trial) commentary on said cases, and commentary on other media's reporting.
18. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Aighearach · 2014-12-17 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you understand what you're speaking of. The lavabit technology is a totally different thing than normal email encryption. And I didn't claim "nobody can believe [something or other not specified."
  Using normal encryption there is nothing your service provider can be secretly ordered to provide. You would need to order the evidence from either the sender or the recipient. Just like a sealed letter. Lavabit required the user to trust a service provider, and added a gimmicky anti-government thing that was obviously destined to fail; any competent security consultant would have predicted that trusting the provider would destroy any claims of being secure.
  That you responded to my comments without even realizing I was a groklaw user who read her statement contemporaneously explains why you missed the point; you assumed I missed the point and didn't evaluate my comment as being an informed comment. She was clearly "fed up" with running the site in the days and weeks before deciding to stop posting, and was choosing an excuse to use.
  I didn't say she wasn't sincere, I said the reason was not because she couldn't communicate "securely," whatever that means. Before groklaw ever started there were already FBI email-keyword-search sniffing boxes in ISPs. That was pre-9/11. Email was never ever ever ever ever ever secure; nor was it ever claimed to be, or believed to be by anybody who looked into it. And, secure email had nothing to do with what groklaw was doing, which was publishing public court filings and commentary on them.
  So it is just factually incorrect that she shut down because of suddenly finding out that email isn't secure. She shut down, as she explains in her post, (regardless of whatever wording she may have used) for the purpose of protesting policy that didn't actually impact her.
19. Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2014-12-17 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  I was a regular user on groklaw as well. She quit because she was a private person and email was no longer private. You may be able to protect the contents of your email by encrypting it (assuming that the encryption hasn't been intentionally compromised, which is NOT a safe assumption), but that doesn't encrypt the "From/To" fields. PJ quit the internet (not just groklaw) because she's a private person who didn't want to be watched.
  You have your view, I have mine. Everyone else can read what she wrote and decide for themselves.
  
  --
  -- Don't Tase me, bro!
Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by TWX · 2014-12-15 06:01 · Score: 1

...he may be the originator of the license, but he'll probably not come across well when talking. Think of Cumberbatch's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in The Reichnbach Fall as an example. Does more harm than good.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by jedidiah · 2014-12-15 06:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  RMS only commissioned the license. He did not create it. The lawyer that actually drafted the license would likely be a much better "witness" assuming that such things would even be considered in this case.
  Amicus briefs are likely the only means of being seen or heard in a case like this.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  He certainly won't come across well when talking if toejam crumbs spatter everywhere while he speaks.
3. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by TWX · 2014-12-15 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  I hope you're right. I also hope that the significant amount of published literature discussing the nature of the license can count for enough public comment to deflate arguments that the violator didn't know of any other interpretations of the license beyond their own.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by unixisc · 2014-12-15 06:41 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Call Eben Moglen then? At least, that way, neither of the parties have to smell RMS from a mile away
5. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by gnasher719 · 2014-12-15 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  RMS only commissioned the license. He did not create it. The lawyer that actually drafted the license would likely be a much better "witness" assuming that such things would even be considered in this case.
  Even so, what the lawyers who created the license intended doesn't matter. Or what he was told that the license should achieve, doesn't matter either. The text of the license matters.
6. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by TWX · 2014-12-15 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you certain of that? Bear in mind, when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, judges do look at other influencing documents from the time, like The Federalist Papers, which are not themselves legal documents.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
7. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  You also forget that the writers of The Federalist Papers were _also_ drafters at the Constitutional Convention. That's why The Federalist Papers are so important--they give insight into the intentions of the drafters in the words of key participants, not simply insight into the collective motivations or to public understanding.
  But in any event the rules for interpreting contracts are much more strict than the rules for interpreting legislation and organic law documents like constitutions.
  OTOH, strictly speaking, contracts aren't licenses, even though some overly reductionist attorneys and judges like to argue that a license is just a subspecies of contract. With licenses in particular it's much more common to impute intent and massage the terms in light of the context, especially when the license wasn't negotiated. And much will turn on the judge's views wrt the role and application of copyright.
  Also, what matters is the intention of the parties to the contract or license, not to the drafters. If there's ambiguity in the license, what matters is how the parties intended it to operate. Most legal documents were drafted by others; or are assemblages of terms drafted by others. Almost always nobody remembers or cares who the original authors were.
  Of course, the parties' intentions may have been informed by the FSF's gloss on the GPL, but when you're dealing with lawyered-up entities the judge will give less weight to this. As far as the court is concerned, it was the parties who drafted the GPL, not the FSF. It's only a secondary concern how others interpret the GPL, and even more important than the FSF's interpretation is how the GPL is generally used and applied in practice.
  The FSF's interpretation could prove very influential, but quite indirectly. When and if he cites the FSF, he'll have to show why the FSF's interpretation matters in terms of the intent of the parties.
8. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Kjella · 2014-12-15 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Are you certain of that? Bear in mind, when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, judges do look at other influencing documents from the time, like The Federalist Papers, which are not themselves legal documents.
  True, but ignorance of the law is no defense. Which basically means that not only must you know the text of the law, but the entire applicable body of law, relevant precedents and current interpretation of the law. Heck, you can still end up losing a trial because the Supreme Court will disagree with your reading of an ambiguous and previously unsettled area of law so being a psychic or clairvoyant could be quite useful. They'll try interpreting the law as intended and you bear the burden if they decide your gray area is on the illegal side.
  In contract law you're not assumed to know anything about the background or history of the license except as written. Sure, if you've been negotiating a contract then that communication is relevant for the interpretation as you're one of the parties but developers and users of GPL software aren't generally in contact. You download a piece of software, accept the agreement and any ambiguity in a take it or leave it license will be almost certainly be interpreted in disfavor of the one who wrote it. Unlike the lawmaking it won't be assumed that their way to read the contract is the authoritative one.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by bws111 · 2014-12-15 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution is basically a contract between the States. It is not unusual in contract law to look outside the contract to resolve ambiguities. They are looking for the so-called 'meeting of the minds' between the parties to determine the real meaning.
  A license is not a contract. It is completely one-sided. and the licensee has no input and there is no meeting of the minds. Therefore, the licensor has all the responsibility for making the license clear. He does not get to go back later and say 'that is not what I meant'.
10. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Abraham Lincoln disagrees, as well as numerous other presidents. As did every judge who ever faced the question, which have been many, because the theory never dies.
  The Compact Theory is something that people rely upon when it suits them, and they disavow it later. In the early 1800s there were times when some states tried to argue for the Compact Theory when it suited them, then a few years later argued against it when it suited them to do so.
  I find it odd that you consider the Constitution a contract, but not a license. IMHO neither is a contract, but the argument for considering a license a type of contract is much more compelling. A license isn't one-sided as long as you can walk away. If somebody says, "Here's X and here are my terms. Take it or leave it", that's still a contract. You're assenting when you take X. Furthermore, nothing prevents you from negotiating, not even a "no negotiation allowed" warning. I once negotiated with a project author to change his license from GPL to LGPL. And I've changed my license (MIT to BSD) several times when requested. You can't know whether somebody will reject your offer until you ask, and the rejection doesn't imply there wasn't a negotiation or that there never existed the prospect of a different result. You have to show much more than that, which is why these disputes can often get bogged down in analyzing bargaining power, etc.
11. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by bws111 · 2014-12-15 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't mean it is literally a contract, I said basically. The point is, multiple parties were involved in it's creation, and when that is the case it is not unusual to consider other sources to resolve ambiguity.
  Yes, you can walk away from a license. That is not the point. The license is already drafted. You interpret it and decide it is good. There is no reason to walk away or negotiate. It would be highly unfair for the licensor to come back and say 'the words I said (and you agreed to by using the product) are not actually what I meant'.
12. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Teancum · 2014-12-15 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  RMS actually wrote the version 1 of the license. He did get some legal assistance in terms of crafting the language of the license, and Eben Moglen was frequently involved in those legal discussion including enforcement of the GPL with regards to software owned (aka the primary copyright holder through various agreements) by the Free Software Foundation (primarily GNU related software). Another significant contributor was Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law fame, although you could also point to several other people who contributed too.
  By the time it got to the version 3 of the GPL license, legal commentary and assistance was very widespread where it would be very hard to point to any single author, although RMS is clearly selecting the language as a sort of editor with regards to how the final wording of the license turned out.
  It definitely was not RMS sitting back and hiring a lawyer to draft the language for him like you would a business contract.
13. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Teancum · 2014-12-15 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  In contract law you're not assumed to know anything about the background or history of the license except as written.
  That isn't true either, particularly with standard contracts that are in widespread usage. A good example of such a contract is the standard Screen Actors' Guild contract, which is something frequently that goes to trial and has had nearly every provision tested in one way or another. Legal precedence in particular (previous court cases that have occurred with regards to that contract) are definitely something you would be wise to pay attention to, in particular any cases argued in Los Angeles County.
  Generally the history of the license or contract is not quite so known, particularly from a legal standpoint, but you can't say that about the GPL. And I might point out that there is legal precedence with regards to enforcement of several parts of the GPL. Any lawyer who does not know what those cases are with regards to the GPL is just showing their incompetence, particularly when a Google search or even searching Wikipedia can get you links to the actual judicial opinions.
14. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Rich0 · 2014-12-16 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Are you certain of that? Bear in mind, when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, judges do look at other influencing documents from the time, like The Federalist Papers, which are not themselves legal documents.
  Sure, but a law is issued by Congress, and by nobody else.
  If I license my software under the GPL and give it to you, then if you want to understand the intent of the license you need to talk to ME and not RMS. After all, _I_ was the one who licensed the software to you. I just used the GPL instead of retyping my own version of it.
  Sure, you can ask what the intent was, but I think the text matters far more in a situation like this.
15. Re:Hope they keep Stallman off the stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  It is, if a cop illegally pulls you over and then arrests you for something else. Their ignorance that pulling you over in the first place was illegal has been deemed a defense of their subsequent illegal search, making that search legal. Just ask the SCROTUM (Sperm Court Rednecks Of The United Megacorporations).
Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by bogaboga · 2014-12-15 06:10 · Score: 2

...4) What type of integration between proprietary code and GPLv2 licensed code will result in creating a "derivative work" and subject such proprietary code to the terms of the GPLv2?
It upsets me that this question will be answered by those who [probably] know nothing about software and code. Why won't they ask those who created this GPL? Wouldn't they surely know better?
1. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Richard_at_work · 2014-12-15 06:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, the creators will tell you what it was intended to do, the court will tell you what it actually does. Potentially huge difference there.
2. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by itzly · 2014-12-15 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  The concept of derivative work itself is not too complicated, and they'll invite experts to testify on the details.
3. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by gstoddart · 2014-12-15 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It upsets me that this question will be answered by those who [probably] know nothing about software and code. Why won't they ask those who created this GPL? Wouldn't they surely know better?
  Because, the GPL is essentially a contract written in the framework of contract law, which says "you have a copyright exemption under the following circumstances".
  There's been tons of confusion about what it actually means, and if it legally means what people think it means.
  Until a court actually rules on this, everything else is an opinion based on someone's interpretation.
  But, from there, if it stands and the court says "this is the impact", then we'll know and there will be legal precedent.
  It's within the realm of the possible the court could invalidate the whole damned thing. And the court could also provide an interpretation which narrows the scope of it. The court could also expand it.
  So, it may upset you, but the foundation of the legal system is more or less until a judge rules on it, and until there is a legal precedent ... you don't really know if it holds water or not.
  Those who created the GPL may not know as much as they think about writing a software license. Or, they knew an awful lot and the court will agree.
  At the very least, this should remove some of the ambiguity and confusion.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by jellomizer · 2014-12-15 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  There is the original intent from the creators, then the interpretation of the users.
  Being that it is a written document, the intent is not really binding, but the letter of the document needs to show that interpretation is wrong.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Kjella · 2014-12-15 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, that part is actually not up to the GPL to define it's a key part of copyright law, if it's not derivative it's not covered by copyright so the GPL wouldn't apply.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  At the very least, this should remove some of the ambiguity and confusion.
  *BZZZT* TRY AGAIN
  I suspect this will carry on for years (or longer via appeals), or be settled out of court in a sealed settlement so no precedent is set.
7. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by bogaboga · 2014-12-15 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  the creators will tell you what it was intended to do, the court will tell you what it actually does.
  No.
  The creators will tell you what it was intended to do and what it actually means within that narrow GPL context.
  That is what is important and that's why we have the so called fine print in all agreements I have come across. No?
8. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Marginal+Coward · 2014-12-15 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Coincidentally, I ran into some text on Wikipedia yesterday that gives a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License">some interpretation by Richard Stallman of the "GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL). I've seen miscellaneous other interpretations of the GPL attributed to him over the years. His opinion - whether you agree with it or not - has generally struck me as irrelevant from a legal point of view: lawyers have more expertise in this, and courts get the final say. So, the value of his opinion, if any, has seemed to me to be only that of a spiritual leader of his movement. The True Believers of any religion should, of course, carefully study and heed each word given to them by their prophet. Fortunately, with Stallman, and Apostle Eben Moglen still around, True Believers need not interpret things for themselves, as they necessarily must do in older religions.
  For example, years ago when the license for Python 1.6 was being formulated, it was repeatedly revised in one section until Stallman declared it to be "GPL compatible". Since he's neither a lawyer or a court, I wondered why it mattered so much to Tim Peters (who, as in so many things, seemed to speak for Python's creator, Guido Van Rossum.) I eventually realized that Stallman's opinion was highly important in terms of swaying the True Believers - who Tim/Guido did not dare offend. And of course, on a more practical level, none of the conventional legal authority knew or cared anything about the situation, so perhaps Stallman was the highest available court to adjudicate the issue.
9. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  I just think it's hysterical that over the years we had people vehemently argue points of the GPL and exclaiming that "it says so there in black and white" with a cite of the GPL that could be, can be and has been interpreted many different ways - all here on Slashdot.
  Legal things are not equations that have only one answer. There are limitations to language and when you write a license that tries to cover unforeseen eventualities, you get something that can be interpreted many different ways and also create loopholes.
  The law is not black and white - as much as people try.
  I remember a case years ago where a legislature (TX?) banned open containers in cars. Well now, folks interpreted that to also mean open soda cans and open potato chip bags.
  Gotta be REAL careful with wording. And that is why courts exist.
10. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  It upsets me that this question will be answered by those who [probably] know nothing about software and code. Why won't they ask those who created this GPL? Wouldn't they surely know better?
  They might know how the software works. When it comes to what could be enforced in a license they know way less.
11. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by BasilBrush · 2014-12-15 06:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If there's fine print, then there's no need for the opinion of the creators. Indeed there's no need for their opinion either way, because if it's not in the license already, in written words, no one is subject to it.
12. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by unixisc · 2014-12-15 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Answer to #3 is clearly NO - that's why GPLv3 was created, which pissed off a large number of companies, and drove them to BSDL solutions, like LLVM/Clang instead of GCC. For #1, the remedy is that they either stop distributing it, or re-license the combination under GPLv2 and distribute it under THOSE terms.
13. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by itzly · 2014-12-15 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  What the creators intended isn't as important as what they wrote down.
14. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Richard_at_work · 2014-12-15 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, what it was intended to do means sod all when it comes to determining what it actually does - the court won't hold you to the spirit, it will hold you to the letter.
  Which is why the fine print exists in those other agreements. But it doesn't exist here beyond the wording of the GPL itself. So asking the creators of the GPL in this instance will get you nowhere because their opinion on the matter lacks any weight, its what the actual wording says which determines what you are beholden to. They dont get to have a second bite of the pie by saying "well, what we actually meant was..." - they had that chance when they wrote it originally.
15. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by gstoddart · 2014-12-15 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  The creators will tell you what it was intended to do and what it actually means within that narrow GPL context.
  No, they won't.
  What the creators will tell you amounts to "if we were in charge, these would be the rules of the GPL and what it means". They can tell you their intent, but intent may not equate to any legal weight.
  The problem is that ignores the rest of the legal system and copyright law which gives the GPL its teeth. For that you need an actual court to rule.
  Nothing at all which is told to you by the creators, proponents, or guys who have read the GPL actually corresponds to the legal interpretation of that license except that it is an opinion.
  They'll tell you what they think it means, what they want it to mean, what they believe and hope it means.
  None of those, however, is legally binding nor does it establish legal precedent.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
16. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by rahvin112 · 2014-12-15 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  The court will interpret intent when the language is unclear, but the "plain language" rule from the supreme court will take precedent.
17. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  I have a feeling the court will go to the side of who has the deepest pockets, as they almost always do:
  1: A GPL violation causes an individual or an organization no damages, so treble damages x 0 is still 0. However, a commercial product that was copied, there was damages -- every single copy can be considered stolen, as it is revenue not obtained.
  2: There is a lot of money set out to render the GPL null and void, as it unlocks a vast treasure trove of software. Where money goes, the law follows.
18. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by gnasher719 · 2014-12-15 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that part is actually not up to the GPL to define it's a key part of copyright law, if it's not derivative it's not covered by copyright so the GPL wouldn't apply.
  Well... Copyright law is about different things, mostly about copying and creating derivative works. A judge would decide whether someone made a copy, or whether someone created a derivative work, according to the law, and the GPL cannot override this. With that decided, the judge will then conclude that either you did need permission by the GPL, or you didn't need permission by the GPL to do what you did.
  
  On the other hand, the GPL can say in its own terms what it allows you to do. They could say "you are allowed to create a derivative work if you do A, B and C; we consider it a derivative work if you did X, Y and Z". Then the judge would check if you did X, Y and Z to decide whether you needed to do A, B and C to get permission from GPL.
  
  If you didn't need permission, then it doesn't matter what the GPL says. If you did need permission, then it matters.
19. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by caseih · 2014-12-15 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No there's a third remedy. Negotiate with the copyright holder for more suitable terms of license. So to summarize, there are three remedies available:
  1. Cease distributing the offending code (replace it, or withdraw the software from distribution entirely)
  2. Re-license the derivative work under compatible terms (essentially release the entire work as GPLv2)
  3. Buy a suitable license for the copyrighted code under terms compatible with the needs of the derivative work.
  Note that #3 is impossible for some projects, as all copyright holders must agree. For some large projects this is very difficult, especially when some contributors can no longer be found. The Linux Kernel is one example.
  For one-man shows, this is why I always recommend the GPL for released code. This allows you the option to sell commercial licenses should your code prove popular. And you still have the option to add additional open source licenses as others request. Releasing code under a permissive license, such as the BSD or even MIT, shuts the door on some of these options. You can always relicense your own code, but you can't recall code you've previously released under another license.
20. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit.
21. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by tiberus · 2014-12-15 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  Sadly too true.
  There is often a vast gap between saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
  It's a real PITA to have someone interpret your words and force you to accept that they don't mean what you intended them to.
22. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  as it unlocks a vast treasure trove of software
  Actually it would do the exact opposite.
  It would lock up much software as then each person who contributed is basically a copyright holder and can sue under that. You would have to get all previous stake holders (if you can get ahold of them) to agree to some sort of new license.
  It would not strip any software of its copyright.
23. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by fche · 2014-12-15 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  The authors of a license, even the GPL, cannot simply redefine the pre-established legal concept of "derivation" (absence of which implies irrelevance of license, no matter what the licensor prefers).
24. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by bogaboga · 2014-12-15 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why the fine print exists in those other agreements.
  
  Agreed.
  
  But it doesn't exist here beyond the wording of the GPL itself. So asking the creators of the GPL in this instance will get you nowhere because their opinion on the matter lacks any weight, its what the actual wording says which determines what you are beholden to.
  So let's agitate for fine print in the GPL to aviod any ambiguity.
25. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-12-15 07:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So asking the creators of the GPL in this instance will get you nowhere because their opinion on the matter lacks any weight, its what the actual wording says which determines what you are beholden to.
  Most prose can be interpreted in multiple ways and not every interpretation occurs to every human at every time. Courts are well aware of this, which is why they will only ever offer an Opinion about what things mean - never claiming to offer the Truth. Even SCOTUS only offers opinions.
  Now, those courts will also issue orders to men with a violent streak to enforce their opinions, so effectively they are Law. But never Truth, which is why subsequent cases can overturn previous ones. This also means that Law is never Truth, only the prevailing view of the status quo of a given time.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
26. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Moderation:
  -1 Missing angle bracket
  +0 Semi-accurate quasi-religious bashing
  -1 Accuracy
  The FAQ for the Python 1.6 license states that the FSF attorney and Richard Stallman objected to a single clause of the Python 1.6 license specifying a venue for interpretation. I don't know why you would assume that Stallman was speaking without benefit of legal counsel. Also, not being a lawyer does not automatically mean you are unqualified to interpret a license agreement (and vice versa). I would assume that, barring evidence to the contrary, RMS is a subject matter expert in the legal interpretation of the GPL and software licensing in general, seeing as how he's been doing nothing else for the last twenty years.
  Aside from ad hominem, do you have any arguments against his expertise in these matters?
27. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  ...4) What type of integration between proprietary code and GPLv2 licensed code will result in creating a "derivative work" and subject such proprietary code to the terms of the GPLv2?
  It upsets me that this question will be answered by those who [probably] know nothing about software and code. Why won't they ask those who created this GPL?
  Your idea is like asking a developer what the source code they wrote will do when it runs ... when you really need to ask the compiler/interpreter author and the guy who wrote the CPU's microcode. It matters not what the author intended.
28. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by bogaboga · 2014-12-15 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  So then let's have some fine-print added to the GPL. That way we are able to have legal terms define what we actually mean.
29. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Microlith · 2014-12-15 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Answer to #3 is clearly NO - that's why GPLv3 was created, which pissed off a large number of companies, and drove them to BSDL solutions, like LLVM/Clang instead of GCC
  Unspecified patent claims on software should be an anathema to BSDL software, given that could result in the patent holder controlling any and all usage of the project despite the license.
  Of course, if this is true then it shows how vile said corporations are. So desperate to undermine the core points of Free Software for the sake of power over others.
30. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by gnasher719 · 2014-12-15 07:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Now all that said, from all I've heard the authors of the GPL were quite competent in what they were doing, so it is quite likely that the GPL says what they meant.
  
  I think the most important thing is about remedies, and there is quite strong precedence. It seems that if you use open-sourced software and don't do what you are supposed to do according to the license, you are a copyright infringer, and not someone in breach of contract. So the damages are those of a copyright infringer (up to $150,000 per work, or the proven damage), and not those of a person in breach of contract.
31. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-12-15 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't even need to be an exclusive copyright. This worked out pretty well for MySQL. They made sure to get at least shared copyright for all contributed code so they could release and licence commercial versions.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
32. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by fche · 2014-12-15 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well sure, but the point is that it's not up to the whims of the license or licensor what those legal terms mean. They exist outside.
33. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by greg1104 · 2014-12-15 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  The details of the Python license jousting was lead by Eben; there's a good summary of the backstory in his 2.1 FSF e-mail. As Mr. Moglen listed himself then as "Professor of Law & Legal History" at Columbia's law school, you're not going to get very far with cheap personal attacks on his credibility. Not that how you tried to do that with Stallman was very productive either, given he's regularly advised by legal counsel when writing.
34. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that the GPL left derivative work undefined (or else specified that this term was the same as used in the applicable copyright law), so that it applies EXACTLY when needed.
35. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Aighearach · 2014-12-15 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  While I mostly agree, I still see permissive licensed code getting support contracts for the same amounts as the license would cost. For the most part, licensed code is purchased for the support. Especially where other free code exists already, using a permissive license can get your code used, and having code that is used is the first step in selling support contracts to some percent of users.
36. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by greg1104 · 2014-12-15 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  If it comes down to pocket depth, companies like RedHat have a lot more money at stake then either of these bozos. If this goes on long enough, I expect some of the big GPL-based software companies like them to get involved in the appropriate side of this, either directly or via FSF funding.
  GPL software doesn't become "unlocked" into the public domain if the license is ruled invalid. Instead the copyright of the source code itself becomes a giant mess of individual author rights, which is useful to almost no one. The commercial competitors to software like Linux would be the main benefactors of that. There may be some shift toward BSD-ish software licenses until this clears up too. I saw a few companies adopt FreeBSD over Linux for that reason, back when the SCO UNIX case was going on, due to perceived legal risk. But most just said "it's OK, IBM and The Nazgul have got this".
37. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by linuxrocks123 · 2014-12-15 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  
  --
  vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
38. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Darn, every time I post some of my honest opinions on this topic, they get modded down. And you even go so far as to call them "cheap personal attacks". I honestly don't see what's cheap or personal about what I wrote. For example, was I wrong when I wrote that Stallman is "neither a lawyer or a court"? And I didn't say anything at all about Professor Moglen except to describe him as an "Apostle". That's actually a bit of a complement - people describe one of the authors of The New Testament using that very same term...
  Darn, you True Believers are awfully humorless and sensitive. (Now, that was a cheap, personal attack. ;-)
39. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Response:
  - Sorry about the missing angle bracket. We all make mistakes.
  - Really, think about it - the Free Software movement has all the elements of a religion. It even has a sacrement: toe jam. (Now there's an ad hominem attack. ;-) But seriously, folks, how can one get one's head cut off for apostaphy by a group of folks for a different set of beliefs if the folks who do the slicing don't belong to an intolerant religion? Sadly, it happens each and every time I express my honest opinion on any FSF subject. For that reason, I usually post such things as AC, but I keep hoping a different point of view might be of interest at some point. Didn't anybody ever consider that someone else might legitimately belong to a different religion - even if you've got one of your own? (Hint: see ISIS.)
  - OK, you got me there. Yes, I could have been more accurate. But ain't no PhD thesis, it's Slashdot...
40. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by linuxrocks123 · 2014-12-15 09:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So, it may upset you, but the foundation of the legal system is more or less until a judge rules on it, and until there is a legal precedent ... you don't really know if it holds water or not.
  Bullshit. The entire point of having a legal system based on written law is so that people know what the law is without having to just try things and then see if the executive arrests them. There are places in the law that are rough and where you really don't know what a judge will do -- "new areas of the law" -- but, in most cases, you do know what a judge will do, because of statute and precedent in similar cases. This certainty is what gives the law its value.
  The GPL is a fairly simple document. It's pretty clear what it means, so we really don't need a judge to tell us. This court case might clear up a few corner cases about the consequences of infringement (forced relicensing or simple injunction + damages), but it is effectively impossible the entire document will be held null and void. There's enough precedent that it is possible to conditionally license a copyrighted work that the GPL's general validity is not in doubt.
  
  --
  vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
41. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  People always make this argument. As a professional programmer and as somebody who also has a law degree, I'd just like to point out that I don't think the experience of the judge should matter.
  First, in a dispute like this, rarely are the parties engineers, anyhow. They're regular people or businesses, and the software and the legal devices involved are no more special than any of other good and service used. When you have dispute with an mechanic, do you want a grease monkey for a judge? If you get hauled into court for solicitation of sex, do you want a sex-therapist for a judge? In either case, maybe or maybe not, but you can't build a general-purpose legal regime on such specialization.
  Secondly, if you want a specialist to arbitrate, then you should say-so in a contract granting the license. Ending up in a court of general jurisdiction means you either didn't care, or the attempt at using a technically sensitive arbitration didn't work well.
  Thirdly, the common law system of adjudication is especially good at dealing with specialized subjects. If you want to see what specialization gets you, look no further than the Federal Circuit. By and large, the only good decisions regarding patent and copyright law have come out of the District Courts and SCOTUS. You don't want a judge who tries to think too far ahead. A generalist judge will look more closely at the intentions, motivations, and context of the parties involved, rather than trying to craft a piece of scholarship. The beauty about _real_ disputes is that you don't have to guess about the problems that some clause might create--you're faced with a manifest problem. For all their faults, judges are more grounded in reality than legislators precisely because the stuff they deal with has actually happened--it's not just a fantasy or guess. Speciality judges often fit somewhere between regular judges and legislators because relying too heavily on your own experience and insight means you might not realize it when the world passes you by (i.e. your experience is no longer relevant).
  Fourth, the awesome thing about our federal system is how large it is. If one circuit makes a bad decision, it doesn't automatically effect everybody. So unlike something like the Federal Circuit, or in speciality forums where people--including arbitrators--are more likely to adopt a dominant perspective uncritically, you can get a vigorous, well-reasoned, and well-supported debate which, in the long run, can end up with much better law for everybody.
42. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by budgenator · 2014-12-15 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter what the aurthor of the GPL meant, it's what the licensor actually said that counts
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
43. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by jbolden · 2014-12-15 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Either side could call Stallman as a witness. I can't imagine that some percentage of the plethora of materials explaining what a derived work is and what is meant that has been written by open source advocates over the past 3 decades won't make its way into evidence.
44. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by jbolden · 2014-12-15 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's not true. In all contract law there is a concept called "the form of the contract" which means contracts are interpreted inside of a context and that context is included in the contract unless explicitly excluded. For example if X signs a service contract with Y which lists the services by X and payments by Y but never says that X will perform the services or that Y will deliver those payments it is assumed from the form. On the other hand an insurance list is just a list.
45. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  No.
  The creators will tell you what it was intended to do and what it actually means within that narrow GPL context.
  That is what is important and that's why we have the so called fine print in all agreements I have come across. No?
  No.
  Where I live the courts do NOT like when people write contracts that can be interpreted in multiple ways. They feel that this can be used to trick people into contracts that they didn't really agree with.
  Because of this contract law specifically states that if the contract can be interpreted in multiple ways it should be interpreted as to not favor the one who wrote the contract.
  So no, while the creators certainly can tell you what they intended with the writing it is not up to them to decide what it actually means in the context of the law.
46. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Teancum · 2014-12-15 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Except there are judicial opinions and legal precedence with regards to the GPL. This isn't 1990 when there are six websites on the internet and the GPL was brand new with everybody speculating about what a judge might say about the GPL. SCO v. IBM is one example of a set of legal opinions written (in this case from federal courts) by actual judges where the GPL was a central point of contention and real legal precedence can be found.
  Fortunately the GPL was written to be understood by those who were using the license, where violations of the terms of the license are very clear and almost everybody who is out of compliance knows they are out of compliance. It is usually jerks and idiots who push the terms of the license to the point you even need a judicial opinion on the matter.
47. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by HornWumpus · 2014-12-15 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  I have long dreamed of inventing a new crime.
  God damn computer fraud and abuse act makes anything a federal judge doesn't like retroactively illegal.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
48. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by linuxrocks123 · 2014-12-15 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  There's a law review article I read somewhere arguing that unless federal courts narrow the scope of that law, it will eventually be found void for vagueness. It is very poorly written.
  
  --
  vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
49. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  "The creators will tell you what it was intended to do and what it actually means within that narrow GPL context."
  Too late. The contract is already signed and the license agreed upon.
  "That is what is important and that's why we have the so called fine print in all agreements I have come across. No?"
  No. It is the perfect opposite: the "fine print" is there exactly because you are *not* going to ask the text author about what was the intended meaning. The meaning is what the text says and no more.
  Since it is a license, court will have to be liberal on the interpretation of the party subjected to the license, *not* the party producing it.
  Luckily, Mr Moglen did a good job with the GPLv2 redaction and the intention will prevail.
50. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  "It doesn't matter what the aurthor of the GPL meant, it's what the licensor actually said that counts"
  No, it isn't. What the licensor actually "said" is the text of the GPL itself, since that's how the work is licensed.
  But then, since it is a license, a kind of contract that you don't get the chance to negotiate, it is not the interpretation of the licensor the one that counts, but the interpretation of the licensee, within reasonable bounds.
51. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  "I saw a few companies adopt FreeBSD over Linux for that reason, back when the SCO UNIX case was going on, due to perceived legal risk."
  Which is quite funny, since the first strong push for Linux instead of FreeBSD was because of the percived legal risk of BSD, back when the USL vs BSDi was going on.
52. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  If he was a specialist in immigration law, then his reasoning and credentials would have just as much weight as any other lawyer in existence. You are arguing that his word should be taken as Truth due to his credentials. In other words, it is an appeal to authority.
  Pot shots are, of course, not real argument; and they need not be considered a valid attack. However, if one could mount a rational argument without name calling (or obvious flaws), that argument should be evaluated without regard to it's origin.
  This idea is the kernel of the children's fable "The Emperor's New Clothes". The swindlers preemptively attack all critics (all critics are unworthy), who then withhold criticism in fear of being seen as unworthy. Only when an unassailable critic (the child) speaks is it obvious that sham cannot be perpetuated.
  I don't care if the GPL was authored by a baker, if it withstands trial, it withstands trial.
53. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  So basically, you recommend the GPL because it allows you to decide "actually, I don't want to be open in this person with money's case". Doesn't really go with the spirit of open source, does it ;)
54. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  > But then, since it is a license, a kind of contract that you don't get the chance to negotiate
  No, a license is not a contract in any sense. You are under no obligation under the GPL and don't have to agree to it in order to take advantage of it.
  All it does is grant you rights you otherwise don't have, and specifies what you may do with the work-- not anything you have to do with it.
  People like to point to GPL2 Section 3b as an "obligation," because it allows you to include an offer of source code when distributing rather than including the source code itself, but that is merely an exemption to the "no-binaries-without-source" condition. GPL doesn't specify what happens if you don't make good on your offer, though. I'd like to see that tested in court.
55. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by mr_mischief · 2014-12-16 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  It will hold you to the letter until there's something vague and in need of interpretation. Then the court will consult the original party or parties as to the intended spirit of that portion and take it into consideration.
56. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  This is the most insightful comment I have ever read on Slashdot. I am awestruck
57. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by greg1104 · 2014-12-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  I was responding to the parent post's mocking of someone's credentials by pointing out that criticism was invalid. Go back and read what I wrote again, pay attention this time, and you'll see I wasn't doing an appeal to authority at all.
58. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by budgenator · 2014-12-16 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily, anyone can contact the software authors and negotiate license terms; it can become more difficult as the number of authors increase and probably exponentially more difficult. MySQL for an example had multiple licensening options, one was the GPL.
  The reason what licensor actually said that counts is because the licensor is the entity that initiates legal proceedings to remedy perceived violations of the licence. Any way the terms of the GPL are essentially a non-concern until you distribute.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
59. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by turbidostato · 2014-12-16 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Not necessarily, anyone can contact the software authors"
  Key word being "can" which is neither "should" nor "must". The user either contacts for renegotiation/clarification of the license, in which case there will be a paper track and it will be the paper what counts, or the user won't contact, in which case, it will be the paper what counts.
  In neither case the licensor will have the chance to further explain his intent to the court.
  "The reason what licensor actually said that counts is because the licensor is the entity that initiates legal proceedings to remedy perceived violations of the licence."
  Taken to the extreme, the only thing that counts is what the court says about the meaning of the paper but, being not so extreme, the court will hear the meaning both the licensor and the licensee understand out of the paper and, as long as both interpretations are fair, it will be the interpretation of the licensee -NOT the licensor, the one that will be supported by the court.
  "Any way the terms of the GPL are essentially a non-concern until you distribute."
  It depends on "who" you are. If I get a GPL-released binary it will be me the one asking for the sources while still I didn't distribute anything.
60. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. The entire point of having a legal system based on written law is so that people know what the law is without having to just try things and then see if the executive arrests them. There are places in the law that are rough and where you really don't know what a judge will do -- "new areas of the law" -- but, in most cases, you do know what a judge will do, because of statute and precedent in similar cases. This certainty is what gives the law its value.
  You have described the law as it works in a fantasy world.
  In the real world, things are rather different. Natural language is ambiguous, a point that every experienced software or hardware engineer should understand thoroughly, but the laws are not kept up to date with respect to problems in interpretation or wording that are discovered. A professional engineering organization would not allow a specification to get out of date for long, correcting problems in the language quickly, but in law the standards of professionalism are quite different.
  When one examines the US legal system closely, one quickly determines that there is a huge ethics problem in US law, with many aspects of the legal system violating the fundamental right to ethical practice of law, where even the appearance of conflict of interest is invalid if reasonable alternatives exist (one of the more important rights that can be asserted as a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment). The ethics problem causes law and predecent to be very complex, even contradictory, and makes a lot of the written law invalid in the eyes of any reasonable person.
  Further, the open-endedness of the Bill of Rights means the written law isn't even dominant: the 9th Amendment provides for unspecified rights retained by the people, and the 10th Amendment provides for unspecified rights reserved to the people. The open-endedness is so important, it appears twice! James Madison deliberately did this to address the objections to the Constitution raised by the anti-federalists.
  Every legal professional and senior government official, in swearing to uphold the Bill of Rights, swears an oath to accept this open-ended nature of the Bill of Rights as a condition for engaging in the practice of law or holding any position of public trust or responsibility. In practice, those oaths are violated all the time.
  Consider federal tax law, for example: it's about 2700 pages of text, supported by about 70k pages of commentary, interpretation, history, and so forth. A reasonable tax law, one consistent with the right to ethical practice of law, might be one hundred pages, self-contained, which means the current law is massively illegal. But this doesn't stop the legal profession from choosing to enforce the current federal tax law, even though it is a clear violation of their oaths to do so!
  If you think the tax law is a special case, think again. The law for Obama Health Care is over 2000 pages. There's nothing wrong with improving the health care system -- regulation has always been an important part of capitalism, a point you'll find discussed at length in Adam Smith's seminal work on economics, The Wealth of Nations, and other nations are doing some things better than the USA does with respect to health care -- but this is not the right way to go about doing it.
  All this is nothing new, of course. This kind of pattern occurs throughout US history. For example, some people understood at the Constitutional Convention that keeping slavery in the law was inconsistent with the values in the declaration of independence (see, for example, the speech by Gouverneur Morris on slavery). As such, keeping the slave system going over the long term was not merely immoral, but also unethical conduct on the part of the legal professionals involved in actions related to continuing the trade. Many of the better known Founding Fathers (including Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin) spoke out against slavery, or took action against it, but
61. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing as how Eben Moglen used to work for a supreme court justice, my money is on that he knew exactly what he was doing.
62. Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2? by Pseudonym · 2014-12-17 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  It would lock up much software as then each person who contributed is basically a copyright holder and can sue under that.
  That's true of the Linux kernel. It's not true of most GPL'd code, which is almost all available under GPL version X (for some X) "or (at your option) any later version".
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
AWESOME! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Versata is essentially a "vulture" company that buys software companies that are down to life-support levels to extract the last bits of value (continuing support contracts, etc.). If you ever see them knocking on your door, find another job ASAP because your company (and your job) is a gonner. Interestingly, one thing that companies do as part of the due diligence when acquiring other companies is determine if there is any open source in the products in order to identify potential liabilities. Btw, companies looking for a buyout often go through a phase to clear out potential open source infringements, so that's a sign if it wasn't clearly spelt out..
I'm guessing that in this case Infosys, a contractor for Ameriprise, probably got paid to develop some software and made it in the form of a library to be used in other contracts. Having outsourced to India before, I was pretty sure that was going on (that and liberal use of open source). After all, rapid development doesn't happen magically.
1. Re:AWESOME! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing that in this case Infosys, a contractor for Ameriprise, probably got paid to develop some software and made it in the form of a library to be used in other contracts. Having outsourced to India before, I was pretty sure that was going on (that and liberal use of open source). After all, rapid development doesn't happen magically.
  Ahahahahahaah!
  Sending projects overseas will get you sued for GPL violations.
  So, off-shoring shoring doesn't look so good, does it?
2. Re:AWESOME! by rgbscan · 2014-12-15 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  I did a stint at Ameriprise in the early 2k's. They let most of us go and farmed out the jobs to IBM when American Express divested us. We used to be a division called "American Express Financial Advisors" (or AEFA internally - which was formed from the remnants of IDS Advisors for you Minnesotans familiar with the IDS tower) but when they spun us off into Ameriprise all of IT was axed. Who IBM got to do all the tech work, I don't know. Maybe it was Infosys or maybe they came later. It was all foreign contractors though.
3. Re:AWESOME! by unixisc · 2014-12-15 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that AEFA spun off after it got H&R Block's Investment division - I was an H&R Block customer, and became an AEFA one automatically as a result of that merger. What remained of H&R was the tax advisory arm.
Programming Language by wisnoskij · 2014-12-15 06:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder if it is possible to create a communication language that has the reproducibility and stability of a programming language. There is hardly even any point in writing out legal rights or documents when everytime it is read it can be interpreted differently. It seems that the law has taken the stance that, since reinterpreting it every time is a hassle and inconsistent, we will just use the interpretation of whoever read it first. But since we have no accurate way of storing legal ideas, how do you interpret the interpretation accurately?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:Programming Language by oodaloop · 2014-12-15 06:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think you're referring to lojban.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
2. Re:Programming Language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I view Lojban as fundamentally flawed for general human communication. But it would be excellent for unambiguous technical specifications and legal documents.
  Latin, at one time, was used in law for essentially the same reason. A modern equivalent would be using a controlled language that follows very careful definitions. The common law system, as used in the US, does limit the meaning of many words that have legal significance, but it's an ad hoc system that constantly evolves.
3. Re: Programming Language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  yes, the law systems of some countries are formal like math.
  the US law system is a bad example, it depends on feelings, personal/public opinion and money. but... what to expect from people that torture, kill, conquer, lie, steal and call it law and order?
4. Re:Programming Language by bws111 · 2014-12-15 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  This is an idea that is often posted on here, and it never makes sense to me. What makes you think a programming language would do any better with these kinds of questions? There are basically an infinite number of variables - how do you write a program that handles all those variables, especially when some variables or values were not even known to exist (or were otherwise not considered) when the program (law) was written? The best you could do is throw an exception when the set of variables and values does not already match an existing definition.
  Which is basically what the law does. If a case is largely the same as a prior case the principles of law are pretty well understood, and executing the 'program' just determines which party wins based on the established rules. But when a case is not just like a previous case, then more work is required. When that work has been done it becomes precedent, and future cases do not need to consider how those variables should be interpreted.
5. Re:Programming Language by jratcliffe · 2014-12-15 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, people aren't identical. Take 1000 Macbooks, run the same code on them, and you'll get (almost always) identical results. You won't get the same asking 1000 people to interpret a law or contract.
  Lawyers (at least good ones) attempt to deal with this issue by being as precise and comprehensive as possible. Often, they're derided for creating "1000 page contracts in legalese instead of a one page agreement," but 999 of those pages, and the legalese, are usually efforts to explicitly deal with the corner cases that can come up in a contract.
6. Re: Programming Language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Lemme guess, these countries with 'formal' laws have such great and just laws as stoning to death for adultery, etc. Right? Because there is no country that has a sense of justice (as opposed to just having laws) that has 'formal like math' laws.
7. Re: Programming Language by wisnoskij · 2014-12-15 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  But you can transfer that codebase to a thousand different aystems, windows, Linux, anything you want, you could even run it on a decemal based computer instead of digital. The program as it is written in an language would run the same every time.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
8. Re: Programming Language by bws111 · 2014-12-15 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  It will run the same every time, right up until the point where a new unexpected input is introduced. What then?
9. Re:Programming Language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  I view Lojban as fundamentally flawed for general human communication
  Would you care to point out why? I thought that making the language syntax completely regular would help improve the suitability for general human communication.
10. Re:Programming Language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Lojban has problems in that it is not culturally neutral. Or rather it is so culturally neutral that it becomes a toolkit to construct a cultural dialect that is difficult to be mutually intelligible. My favorite example being one on wikipedia, most of us would translate "Several small fires were burning in the house." to "so'i cmalu fagri puca'o jelca ne'i le zdani", because most cultures have a tendency to form a sentence from several small words. But a culture that prefers lots of prefixes, suffixes and compound word-sentences might translate it as "zdane'ikemcmafagyso'ikemprununjelca". In this way, Lojban does not provide a completely unbiased way to examine the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
  Another problem with Lojban, that when used in the unambiguous form (which differs from how I might use it informally). A lot of metaphors that translate well between those familiar with Western culture do not translate well to some aboriginal, but in some cases can be applied well across Eastern culture. That we're both speaking Lojban, but one of us uses an almost idiomatic metaphor that the other one cannot understand means we have lost something in communication.
  Unfortunately, metaphor is not simply colour. And can range from being a concise representation to the only practical way to describe an abstract topic that lacks a physical representation.
  That Lojban is not a perfect constructed language does not mean it is not fun or useful. It can do things a lot of other languages cannot do. But the mistake I made getting into it was that it could potentially grow to be the only language humanity would need to communicate. A universal language that could span all cultures. But I'm convinced that we'd need a monoculture for us to exist with a single language. And while Lojban is easier to learn as a second language than most (all?) other languages, having it as a first language isn't likely to be of much benefit when children can already pick up any of the world's languages quickly.
  In short, Lojban did not live up to the hype.
11. Re:Programming Language by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  "I wonder if it is possible to create a communication language that has the reproducibility and stability of a programming language."
  You have never faced a bug or a divergence between compilers, do you?
12. Re: Programming Language by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  "you can transfer that codebase to a thousand different aystems, windows, Linux, anything you want, you could even run it on a decemal based computer instead of digital. The program as it is written in an language would run the same every time."
  Except, well, you know, it doesn't.
  I don't know where your computer expertise comes from, but you can bet is not as exhaustive as you think it is.
Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:17 · Score: 2, Funny

No, no, no. What they should have done is submitted it to Slashdot and read the posts to find out what the GPL means and what they should do.
Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Danathar · 2014-12-15 06:21 · Score: 2

From the Article:
"3. Does the GPLv2 include a patent license?"
No. And THAT is why we have the GPLv3, to head off patent problems (among other things)
1. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by TheRaven64 · 2014-12-15 06:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, sort of. Clause 7 could be interpreted as a patent license, in that if you knowingly distribute code that violates your patents then you are violating the license if you don't also include a patent grant. In v3 it's more explicit precisely because it was ambiguous in v2. It's up to the court to decide whether this ambiguous license is a license.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by gstoddart · 2014-12-15 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  No. And THAT is why we have the GPLv3, to head off patent problems (among other things)
  Great, at this rate it should be, what, another 15-20 years before that gets tested in court?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Great, at this rate it should be, what, another 15-20 years before that gets tested in court?
  You could help test it earlier if you want to engage in a bit of willful violation yourself...
4. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Actually GPLv2 does talk about patents... From GPLv2:
  
  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
  The distributor may license the patent on behalf of the receivers or otherwise get permission to use the patent in the distributed software for free. Another option is always to not distribute the software at all.
5. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by rahvin112 · 2014-12-15 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you distribute a license to use for these terms and you control the patent on them you have an implied license to do so and all it will take is a promissory estoppel motion to squash that claim.
  The entire foundation of contract law would come crashing down if you could write a contract to use some thing you have a patent on (which you didn't mention) but then make them take out a separate patent license. The only way you could do that is explicitly mention in the contract to use that the patent isn't included. The court is going to see any right to use something as including an implicit patent license unless the patent is owned by someone else.
6. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by gnasher719 · 2014-12-15 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you distribute a license to use for these terms and you control the patent on them you have an implied license to do so and all it will take is a promissory estoppel motion to squash that claim.
  I really wouldn't think so. Sure, it has to be made clear that the license for the software doesn't include the license for the patents. But it would make absolute sense if a patent holder made it easy for companies to actually use their patent by providing open source software to use the patent, instead of everyone having to create their own proprietary software.
7. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Qzukk · 2014-12-15 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  it would make absolute sense
  Now back up a second there and consider proprietary software. Imagine if you bought Microsoft Office for your company and a year later Microsoft comes along and starts threatening you with patent infringement lawsuits over your use of their patents. I can't imagine that a court would stand for that at all without at least a fine print "requires additional patent license" and even then there's fitness requirements that the court would have at least a little discussion on.
  Why would it be different for something given to you for free with explicit permission to use and give away? If the patent holder wants to provide a reference implementation to licensors, they can do so with a license tied to their patent, but it should not be the GPL.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
8. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  From the Article:
  "3. Does the GPLv2 include a patent license?"
  No. And THAT is why we have the GPLv3, to head off patent problems (among other things)
  Except if you RTFA that's not what they're actually asking.
  The GPL Copyright holder sued the companies and their customers for patent infringement (as well as the copyright stuff) and the judge has already dismissed the claims against the end customers because, in his belief, the GPLv2 does include a patent license. Just not in the way I had read it (and you appear to have made the same mistake).
  His decision was based on the fact that the GPL (so long as you comply with it) gives you the right to run the code, and therefore you cannot be held liable for infringement of the Copyright holder(s) patents.
  What the GPLv3 is interested in is distributors then claiming the receivers violate _their_ patents.
9. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Aighearach · 2014-12-15 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Contrary to the FUD you may read on the internet, the GPL does not need to be "tested in court" and will not be by these cases. You can't challenge a license you're not a party to; you can't sue to harm yourself; if the Court throws out the contract, it cannot write a new one. So you can't be using GPL code and then challenge the license. If you proved the license to be fatally deficient, you'd lose your right to use the code; you'd be harmed by your own court action, and you'd be the only loser. So the Court wouldn't even let you argue that; it is not a valid basis for a case.
  You can fight over the smaller details of a license and what it means, but you can't actually attack the license here. Because it is free, you can't claim to have been misled, or been a victim of an unfair business practice. So you can only argue the edge cases and how they effect you; you can't both have standing, and also challenge the validity of the license.
  It is mostly just misrepresenting the cases that conflates them with having to do with the GPL. These are cases that revolve around business practices and contracts between companies, where there are issues related to their partnerships and business practices related to each other. It has nothing to do with the GPL itself, except in weighing the reasonable expectations of the different parties. If the rulings go one way or the other, it won't affect the GPL or companies using the GPL. It will only affect companies that engage in whatever practices are found to be unfair or harmful.
  In the cases here, there are three companies involved; company A licensed software from company B under proprietary terms. That license is actually the main one involved in the 5 cases. Company A was allowed to use 3rd party contractors to edit the code, subject to terms. Company C (the 3d party contractor) is accused by Company B of having use Company B's code in a competing project. Company B also accuses Company A of not terminating their contract with Company C when they learned they were in violation of the agreement. Company A accuses Company B of having used GPL code in the code they licensed, and therefore that they didn't have the right to license it, and that the entire codebase is a derivative work of that GPL code.
  So the GPL is "involved" in the sense that the Court has to decide if this code is licensed rightfully under the proprietary license, and/or the GPL. Depending on the answer to that question, some number of these companies may be found to have been naughty, and be made to pay. But the GPL is not being questioned here; and it won't ever be in the sense that people always meant by "testing it in court."
10. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  The thing about this, is the court can make whatever choices it wants. The only thing that sets it in stone, is if the appeals courts and US Supreme Court knock out lower court decisions or affirm them with whatever warped sense of the world/law they have. What becomes law, is basically what the judges are willing to agree to and not agree to, usually based on politics and who they really represent behind the scene. In this county, most high up judges are appointed by the rich and wealthy, so often times decisions around copyright, patents, and other bullshit goes to protect the establishment / incumbent companies and people. What this means for GPLv2, is you can end up with all sorts of shit.
  myronmays.com
11. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  I haven't read the FA (after all, this is slashdot) but presumably the original copyright (and patent) holder was blocked from suing for patent infringement by estoppel. He distributed a product which practiced the patent and thereby gave an implicit license to the patent for use of that product.
  Where it gets a little hairyer is when the initial customer then passes it on to a third .. does the implied patent license transfer or not? Looks like the judge is saying that per the GPL, it does, since the original party could presumably have chosen any other license to distribute his original product under, together with a "no-sublicense" restriction on the patent license.
12. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by EvilSS · 2014-12-15 09:39 · Score: 2
  
  Actually there are four companies involved, plus a group of companies other than "Company A" that also use "Company B's" software. That would be the company (Company D?) that wrote the the GPL2 licensed code to begin with, and they are the plaintiff in most of the cases talked about in the article.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
13. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by jbolden · 2014-12-15 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW I've bought software before where the contract has both a license agreement and a limited patent license when the software is designed to throw me into violation of their patents. I've never heard of a company arguing they can sell the one and not the other while claiming both however.
14. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  "He distributed a product which practiced the patent and thereby gave an implicit license to the patent for use of that product.
  Where it gets a little hairyer is when the initial customer then passes it on to a third .. does the implied patent license transfer or not?"
  Have you ever read the license? Is not that long and it is not that unclear.
  What you call "a little hairyer" is right there for you to read.
15. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bite, and I'm not even a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
  In your Microsoft case, everything you write doesn't become Microsoft property, nor is it controlled in such a way that Microsoft details the distribution rights of your works. As such, Microsoft is not getting "more" than their payment, and the exchange of money for use is very clear.
  Now if by your using Visual Studio, Microsoft could then "accquire" the non-exclusive right to distribute (and possibly profit from) all software you wrote with Visual Studio, without regard for other entangling contracts, then what exactly did Microsoft "give" you in exchange? The pleasure of using Visual Studio is no longer a direct benefit to you, it is only a benefit to Microsoft. As contracts require a voluntary exchange, making sure that the exchange is not inherently unfair (exploitation) or coerced is very important.
  When open source was a fraction of the market, the GPL might not have been coercive because there were plenty of other choices. When it becomes a near monopoly, it should be subject to Rico Statue like laws; as it decreases competitiveness into a monopoly of licensing.
  For example, good luck using the cloud without using any open-source software. Fortunately the cloud isn't licensed GPL, and that may be why this particular license is on trial (as opposed to open source software in general.)
16. Re:Does GPLv2 Grant a Patent license by bmo · 2014-12-15 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  There was one direct attack at the GPL that might've had teeth had it not occurred in the fetid imagination of a certain Daniel Wallace.
  Dan Wallace tried to get the GPL considered invalid because it amounted to price fixing and a Sherman Act violation. He claimed the harm was that the Free and free properties of Linux operating systems locked him out of the market, even though he didn't actually have a product to market.
  He was duly struck down hard by a de novo appellate court decision.
  That was probably the only "legitimate" attack on the GPL. Any others are, like you said, shooting the plaintiff in his own foot.
  http://www.internetcases.com/l...
  --
  BMO
might not be as good as you think by Chirs · 2014-12-15 06:37 · Score: 1

I take it you've never seen people arguing about what exactly the C standard means about how "volatile" should behave, or whether the defined memory model is sufficient to reason formally about visibility of variables given specific types of assembly operations, or what optimizations a compiler can legally make (as opposed to what optimizations it would actually make *sense* for it to make).
Even a reasonably-well-defined language like C can still end up in the weeds once you start looking at edge cases...
1. Re: might not be as good as you think by wisnoskij · 2014-12-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Because the C spec is written in English. So of course it has the same problem as even the most expertly written law. But the actual interpreter (aka the compiler) is not. Once you have a working compiler, the code you write for it will be interpreted correctly and the same way everytime.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
2. Re: might not be as good as you think by As_I_Please · 2014-12-15 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  How do you let people know what the compiler does? Unless there's a human-readable spec, people can't plan for future code/contracts. Writing random code/contracts and seeing if it "compiles" is not a great way to program/negotiate.
  Doing the same thing every time is only a prerequisite for being correct. What if most people don't like what the current compiler does? After editing, how do you let people know what changed? How do you even know the compiler is correct without a human-verifiable document of expected behavior?
  If a new version of the compiler comes out, does that mean that all previous versions were interpreting code incorrectly? Is there any existing compiler that behaves correctly?
  When will the questions stop?
3. Re: might not be as good as you think by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and earlier standards are indeed in English. And compilers like gcc, clang, Microsoft Visual C++, etc help flesh out the details.... However the standard defines some things as "undefined behavior" or "compiler-specific behaviour" .. and sometimes changing a compiler to do different or better optimazations can lead some programs to break.
  http://developerblog.redhat.co...
  There are ways to minimize these corner cases.
  http://linux.slashdot.org/stor...
  and then there are bugs... and there are always bugs... so sometimes the English spec is more important than the specific results of various compilers...
  Also the large collection of c programs helps define the language, just as much as any specific compiler... If a compiler turns on a optimazation that the English spec says should be OK, but it breaks real world programs, then it's not going to fly very well... unless it gets it's own flag perhaps.
  Lot's of c compilers are written in c or c++, so they often fall into two categories that help define the language.
4. Re: might not be as good as you think by turbidostato · 2014-12-15 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Once you have a working compiler, the code you write for it will be interpreted correctly and the same way everytime."
  Rrrrright.
  And then, what's the compiler we should use? GCC, Turbo C, Intel's?
  You may tell "whatever is the first one that came to happen" but then, what would be the difference with common law using precedents?
5. Re: might not be as good as you think by Rich0 · 2014-12-16 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Once you have a working compiler, the code you write for it will be interpreted correctly and the same way everytime."
  Rrrrright.
  Well, it is one way to eliminate compiler bugs. By definition the compiler doesn't have any.
6. Re: might not be as good as you think by turbidostato · 2014-12-16 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Well, it is one way to eliminate compiler bugs. By definition the compiler doesn't have any."
  Yes, *a* compiler can be considered to be bug free per definition. But then, two different compilers will render two different outputs. What's the good one then?
7. Re: might not be as good as you think by Rich0 · 2014-12-17 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Well, it is one way to eliminate compiler bugs. By definition the compiler doesn't have any."
  Yes, *a* compiler can be considered to be bug free per definition. But then, two different compilers will render two different outputs. What's the good one then?
  The one that is correct by definition, of course. I'd say that this is a pretty lousy standard to use, but it is a standard.
it only goes to a court in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:39 · Score: 0

...which has only laws important for ... USA. software patents are not legal in most parts of the world. so, why should I careas world citizen?
1. Re:it only goes to a court in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Software can be patented in europe, but not by itself. It has to be part of a machine, where the combination of the software and the hardware produce something unique and patentable, so a software + general purpose computer is not patentable. Atleast in theory.
Programming Language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 06:54 · Score: 0

Yes it is possible.
An ad-hoc attempt would be the 'legalese" that legal documents are written in today (they use conventions and abstraction layers built on top of English and borrowing from latin to make the language more precise and less ambiguous). A created language designed for the purpose would also be possible and would likely be more practical in some respects.
However, much like a malicious compiler can make it so your safe code compiles into unsafe executables, a compromised legal system can take any written law/contract and interperet it to mean something other than what was written. There's also the potential for bugs in any nontrivially complex implementation where the document you produces doesn't say what you wanted it to say.
Simple Is Better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:04 · Score: 0

The "FreeBSD / Simplified BSD License" short and sweet:
Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
--
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Come on Slashdot, get a clue.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
1. Re:Simple Is Better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yuck, that's way too long. ISC license ftw!
  Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name
  Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
  THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
  Mmmm
2. Re:Simple Is Better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Let me be the first to invite you to go die in a fire.
3. Re:Simple Is Better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, no, i don't want to hear about jebus.
Work visas by tepples · 2014-12-15 07:09 · Score: 4, Funny

software patents are not legal in most parts of the world. so, why should I careas world citizen?
Because if the U.S. legislature and courts make software engineering impractical, your country will end up with a lot of skilled U.S. citizens applying for work visas.
it only goes to a court in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:17 · Score: 0

'world citizen' presumably means somewhere subject to nuclear and other hard and soft power of the US government.
I quite doubt that the GPLv2 goes to court here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 07:18 · Score: 0

And the reason is the same as ever: upstream and downstream don't mix. If someone does not want to grant you some rights under the GPLv2, you don't get to sue as downstream. Only upstream gets to sue, and the result of that is that midstream is stripped of the right to distribute downstream at all.
"GPL cases" are never really about the GPL, they are just about the limits of copyright law. And that's exactly because the GPL does not try to impose any additional restrictions over those of copyright law, but merely conditionally relinquishes some of those restrictions.
So all you can sue over is copyright law.
1. Re:I quite doubt that the GPLv2 goes to court here by mark-t · 2014-12-15 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is all about copyright law.
  But for what it's worth, the GPL doesn't even really relinquish any of the restrictions of copyright law either. Copyright law says that you need explicit permission from the copyright holder to copy a work or to create a derivative work of it. The GPL explicitly grants such permission to anyone who agrees to abide by the terms of the license. If you don't agree to abide by the terms (by failing to abide by them), then the terms of the license are simply not applicable to you, and you have not received permission to copy the work or create a derivative work in the first place.
  Simple.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
2. Re:I quite doubt that the GPLv2 goes to court here by greg1104 · 2014-12-15 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  RTFA. The whole point of why this one is interesting is that the upstream here--Ximpleware--is suing and claiming damages.
3. Re:I quite doubt that the GPLv2 goes to court here by Creepy · 2014-12-15 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  GPLv2 has a lot of gray areas, though. It can be used internally by a company without releasing source, it seems to apply to plugins but I've been explicitly told by GPLv3 authors that it does not when GPLv3 was in review, etc. Honestly, I disagree with the GPLv3 authors - a plugin is still a dynamically linked library and I honestly believe that you could use it maliciously to try and infect GPLv3 in commercial software (but I also think it would be thrown out in court). Since GPLv2 is equally ambiguous on plugins, it may also apply to that one, as well.
Why not ask who are in charge of defining words? by Sloppy · 2014-12-15 07:20 · Score: 1

If you were going to ask a "someone" how they meant to define "derived work", you would ask Congress, not the author(s) of one out of a million contracts which happen to make use of that term.
You're right that it's upsetting that (mostly) people who don't really work with copyright would end up answering it, but that's the nature of law, or at least until you start electing[/appointing/etc] authors. (Cynic: or until those people start funding election campaigns.)
It's only after you have determined that something is a derived work, that you go study licenses. Until that point, licenses are irrelevant.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Remedies by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-12-15 08:03 · Score: 2

1) What are the remedies for breach of the terms of the GPLv2?
This one is easy - if there's a breach then the license is void and Copyright is the effective law. Code was copied without permission, which becomes a copyright violation, and remedies are already established for that.
GPL is entirely based on the teeth of copyright - almost every OSI license is. If you hate imaginary property then you might question your use of licenses that depend on it.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:Remedies by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  Uh.... no. That's the *POINT* of the GPL
  The GPL has /exactly/ as much teeth as copyright permits it to have, and no more.
  Any remedy available to a copyright holder is available to the author of software that had the GPL infringed.
  And while some people prefer more libris BSD style... there's a lot of us that are fairly happy with the attitude of "we only share our toys with others who share theirs."
  I understand if you disagree with that choice, but your implied claim of hypocrisy is ill placed. The GPL is and will remain /exactly/ as strong as what it opposes.
It's really pretty simple: by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 08:20 · Score: 0

The answers are mostly spelled out in the GPL itself.
1) Breach of terms means no license to distribute, thus breach of copyright and all the civil and statutory penalities thereof.
2) Distribution is giving/selling copies to 3rd parties, which is copyright violation absent a license.
3) No, that's why we have GPL 3.
4) Is also spelled out in the license. About the only kind of "integration" not covered is if two unrelated programs, one GPL'd and one not, happend to be included on the same disc (or other distribution medium).
What GPL based companies ? by perpenso · 2014-12-15 08:49 · Score: 1

If it comes down to pocket depth, companies like RedHat have a lot more money at stake then either of these bozos. If this goes on long enough, I expect some of the big GPL-based software companies like them to get involved in the appropriate side of this ...
What GPL based companies? IBM, RedHat, etc don't care about the GPL. All they care about is working software with a community behind it. What license it uses is largely irrelevant.

GPL software doesn't become "unlocked" into the public domain if the license is ruled invalid. Instead the copyright of the source code itself becomes a giant mess of individual author rights, which is useful to almost no one.
No. Its not all or nothing, rather pieces of the GPL may get struck down. For example what a court defines to be a derivative binary work may be quite different than what GPL advocates say a derivative binary work is. The rest of the GPL, in particular those portions dealing with source code contributions and redistribution, may remain intact.
1. Re:What GPL based companies ? by david_thornley · 2014-12-15 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen two positions on the definition of a derivative work. One is that the GPL goes much further than the law does, and a court will scale it back. The other is that, if you're taking advantage of the GPL, you need to abide by their definitions. It will be interesting to see what a court decides.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:What GPL based companies ? by greg1104 · 2014-12-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  RedHat's signature RHEL product (among others) contains a massive amount of GPL code. There are major ramifications to their business should that license be weakened in a way that hurts their legal right to distribute all that code. Same thing is true of every other company making money selling Linux based solutions. There is no community behind Linux anymore if the license all the contributors were working together via falls.
  That the GPL will be invalidated completely by any of this is admittedly an unlikely straw-man position. That's not mine though--I was responding to commentary presuming that was a feasible goal, if money were applied to the problem.
3. Re:What GPL based companies ? by perpenso · 2014-12-16 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Red Hat's business is providing a highly capable *nix environment to customers and charging for support. If in that unlikely straw man scenario where distribution rights are attacked, rather than the more likely "what is a derivative binary" attack, it may be cheaper for Red Hat to move their kernel and user land to BSD or some other more permissive license than to pay for legal expenses. I doubt many clients would care so I don't think Red Hat's business is inherently threatened even in the straw man scenario.
  
  As for the community of developers. Long gone are the days of hobbyists contributors. In recent years most work is corporate funded. What was funded by Red Hat, IBM etc could be relicensed as needed. The work necessary to remove hobbyist code, assuming the hobbyist is unwilling to relicense, might be limited.
  
  So perhaps "major ramifications" in the sense that there will be a bit of work to do but not in the sense that their business is inherently threatened.
Points at the end of the article by Todd+Knarr · 2014-12-15 08:50 · Score: 1

I'd note that the 3 points at the end of the article aren't unique to open-source software but apply to all third-party software you use in building your software. And those points are harder to address for proprietary third-party software than for open-source, because any software component may contain other components you aren't directly aware of and without the source code it's a lot harder to scan proprietary libraries to detect those included components (and it may be impossible if the included components are themselves proprietary because the people who wrote the scanner may not even know those components exist let alone have access to their code to create the necessary detection routines). Or they may be easier to address, if your license for the proprietary libraries doesn't include a right to redistribute then the answers become very simple if rather limiting and any less-restrictive licenses for other components become irrelevant.
Lawyers, English, and software logic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 09:13 · Score: 0

I can hardly wait for this to go to court - it may resemble the old story:
Wife tells her software engineer husband "On the way home, buy a carton of milk, and if they have eggs, get 6!" Later the husband arrives with 6 cartons of milk. The wife asks him, "Why the hell did you buy 6 cartons of milk?" His reply, "They had eggs."
Yes, GPLv2 has a patent licence; here's case law by ciaran2014 · 2014-12-15 11:02 · Score: 1

First, it has the implied patent licence that gets created when you give someone something.
Here's the case law for the USA:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Impli...
Second, GPLv2 has explicit statements about giving the recipient permission to use, modify, redistribute etc. It doesn't give "copyright permission", it gives "permission", so the distributor has given permission to use, modify, etc. It would be hard for a judge to conclude that the distributor reserved the right to later claim it was illegal to use, modify, etc.
Here are the relevant sections:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2...
(The case law for the implicit patent licence uses the term "sell" rather than "give", because the cases in question were about a sale. Now, yes, there's the possibility that a judge could make this distinction, but my second point about the explicit wording in GPLv2 makes this very unlikely to be a problem.)

--
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
The biggest corporation will win by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 12:22 · Score: 0

Look at any of the big court decisions, and you will see that they do not favor the "little man" in any way. Eminent Domain, Citizens United, Amazon case, etc. all go in favor of BIG business. The average citizen will no longer see justice in the U.S.
1. Re:The biggest corporation will win by dbreeze · 2014-12-15 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone please consider supporting Move To Amend https://movetoamend.org/ and maybe we can begin to rein in the corporate takeover of America.
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Fruit Salad by laughingskeptic · 2014-12-15 13:51 · Score: 1

Is fruit salad a derivative work of an apple? I believe that the creators of GPLv2 would say yes, but I don't think it is unreasonable to disagree. A lot hinges on the definition of 'derivative'.
Remedies by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-15 15:53 · Score: 0

Does that mean your contributed work is recalled from distribution and you get your distribution rights back? It goes both ways, and I just don't see how the GPL will be able to undo an Internet distribution.
What _should_ be the decision (in my view). . . by Helldesk+Hound · 2014-12-16 08:04 · Score: 1

In my view the decisions should be:
1) What are the remedies for breach of the terms of the GPLv2?
Answer: Either the offender is to cease distributing the offending software (binary or otherwise) AND the code in question is to be completely and entirely removed from the offending product, or some other solution at the discretion of the Free Software Foundation (including but not limited to the offender entirely ceasing to distribute the offending software.
2) What is a "distribution" under the GPLv2 that triggers the obligations under the GPLv2?
Answer: Any transmission of the software in binary or object code, or any other format where the availability of the software (binary or object code) passes into the control of a person other than the owner of the software.
3) Does the GPLv2 include a patent license?
Answer: No. Software is mathematics and therefore is not patentable.
4) What type of integration between proprietary code and GPLv2 licensed code will result in creating a "derivative work" and subject such proprietary code to the terms of the GPLv2?
Answer: All integration in any way other than an API call to a fully separate self-contained program should result in the integrated code being covered by the GPLv2 license.
Isn't there a separate license for covering situations where people might want to distribute GPL and non-GPL software as a part of a package?
1. Re:What _should_ be the decision (in my view). . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-16 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  3) Does the GPLv2 include a patent license?
  Answer: No. Software is mathematics and therefore is not patentable.
  I'm certainly not in favor of software patents, but doesn't this beg the question that you can't invent things with math?