You have just set back the computer industry six years or more [Emphasis mine]
There seems to be some confusion here. This is/., not the U.S. Department of Justice.
This will be the ultimate IT manager nightmare, because they will have be current on multiple competing versions of Windows, Linux, BeOS and whatever x86-compatible operating system comes along the line.
Actually, OS competition seems to have been forcing companies (*cough* MS *cough*) to make better products. For example, do you really think Windows 2000 would have its UNIXish features if it weren't for the surge in popularity of Linux and *BSD? So why will competition set the industry back? You seem to be arguing that OSes require a natural monopoly like local utilities, but if that is the case, the standard course of action would be for the government to strictly regulate MS's actions, just as local utilities are strictly regulated. You can't have an unregulated natural monopoly without gross abuse by the monopolizing company. (I don't think that OSes require a natural monopoly, but it sounds like you do, which defeats your argument against MS being tried.)
It seems to be that this technology would work equally well using modern technology, i.e. a computer, and would be far simpler to implement. Can anyone explain? I suppose that it would take longer to crack using DNA molecules?
DNA sequencing isn't modern technology?!
Seriously, the way the technique works, if I understand correcly, is that the message is placed in between two known but secret primers, and then somehow mixed into some organism's DNA, which could have hundreds of millions, or even billions, of nucleotides. Sequencing DNA is nontrivial, unlike a computer, where one can scan a multi-gigabyte hard drive in minutes. It would probably take the equivalent of something like the Human Genome Project to sequence the organism's genome and find a single message. However, because of the way DNA works, if you know the primers, you can directly snip out the part with the message, and sequence just that.
People who have 7 figures have -accountants-, and minions to do their computer stuff. This is for Joe Stiff, who makes under $100000 a year. For them, it's very useful, not dead at all.
Having 7 figures to deposit in a bank doesn't imply one is making 7 figures per year. For example, a person in their 50s saving for retirement should probably have more than one year's income saved up.
Now in the case of other knowledge, its entirely possible that one might d/l all of mathematics and not understand any of it. Your brain might simply not have the interconects that need to grow in order to think about a given subject. Similarly, one could d/l all of human history, be able to give names and dates and places of interest, but not be able to reason about those, thus missing the analysis that someone who understands history could make. I don't know how you could download understanding short of instructing the growth of interconects in the brain.
You're starting with the assumption that any information download to the brain must necessarily place the information into long-term semantic memory (the kind that lets you win Jeopardy), and then coming to the somewhat obvious conclusion that this would have rather limited applications. The real breakthrough would be the ability to store stuff in your procedural memory, so that in addition to knowing the definition of an integral, you know how to integrate, for example. After all, your understanding of mathematics is ultimately due to the arrangement of neurons in your brain, so there is no reason in principle why it couldn't be expanded by messing with your neurons. It would obviously be extremely difficult, but I think we all know that.
As for your point about adding interconnects, how else would we be downloading the information in the first place? I thought the whole point was that we'd be screwing with the gray matter. Granted, the original article doesn't have anything to do with adding interconnects, but it doesn't have anything to do directly with adding information to the brain either.
Your budget integrated system could have everything integrated into that chip. Video, sound, I/O. Is it possible to make a chip that you could just plug your keyboard, mouse, monitor into (not the chip literally, but so there is no external logic)?
You need a certain minimal amount of external circuitry because of the various voltage requirements of external devices. Also, you still need to use an external general-purpose system bus unless you want insane numbers of pins and rapid obselecence (as in, your CPU doesn't won't connect to these VR goggles, so you need to buy a new CPU).
Then, we shall see whether Slashdotters approve of massive copying and redistribution of those binaries, in the name of liberty, among the could-care-less-about-GPL-I-want-to-play-Quake community -- notwithstanding Court Orders to the contrary.
Yes, so to repeat, the GPL is not a purely right granting document as you have been arguing previously. Since there is a give and take, it is a contract, which requires agreement to be binding. In an earlier post, you stated that the GPL does not require agreement because it is purely right giving, but it seems that you do not think that this is the case now - so the GPL is subject to the issues which I raised earlier (I won't bother repeating them here, please review the previous posts in this thread if you desire). Conclusion, GPL == shrink wrap license.
OK. The GPL is purely right-granting with one exception, the warranty in the case that you purchase the software and are not warned in advance that there is no warranty. However, I have consistently stated that this single right-taking provision is not binding. In contrast, most shrink-wrap licenses consist entirely of right-taking provisions, which I also consider to be non-binding. If a shrink-wrap license included any right-giving provisions, those additional rights could be taken advantage of only with the assent to any right-taking provisions in the shrink-wrap license. There is no inconsistency in my treatment of shrink-wrap licenses and the GPL. There is justifiable inconsistency in my treatement of right-giving and right-taking provisions, and there is a large difference in the relative proportion of such provisions between the GPL and shrink-wrap licenses. That is all.
Just because there are certain conditions in which the warranty section of the GPL could require agreement to be binding, does not mean that the entire GPL requires agreement to be binding. Moreover, in almost all GPL violations, such as Slade's, the violator is doing something that would be illegal had they not agreed to the GPL.
If I bought the software and desire it to modify it for my own use, the GPL claims that modification requires compliance with all the requirements of the GPL - including giving up my right to a warranty.
I you have a warranty from the seller for whatever, the GPL does not make you give that up. If you don't have a warranty from the seller, you don't have a warranty from anyone in the first place.
Cost has nothing to do with free software in the GNU sense.
Of course not, I never said it does. I'm saying that whether or not something is a sale affects whether there is an implied warranty or not.
And your rights transcend the UCC; as I understand it, in some states, you can sue the manufacturer of a product for negligence.
Cost may not have to do with freedom in the software sense, but it does affect legal liability. If you are aware of a state law that allows distributors of free stuff to be sued for negligence, please cite it.
And what if the person selling you the software were the copyright holder?
Then they'd be required to provide an implied warranty unless they said ahead of time that they wouldn't. When I said, "not the copyright holder", I assumed that the seller and copyright holder were distinct. The copyright holder would not be required to provide a warranty for the same reason that the other 6 billion people who aren't the seller aren't required to provide one.
That was not your position earlier. Your position was that the GPL was different from other shrink wrap licenses, and did not require agreement because it was a pure granting of rights. If you think now that this is not the case, all the issues I raised earlier become cause for convern.
In the limited case where a GPL'd product is being sold, in exchange for money, and the buyer is not told up front that the product has no warranty, the GPL is in the same boat as other EULAs. That is the one case we've both agreed this is a conflict. It's not a concern because anyone commercially selling should know to say "no warranty" up front to avoid the implied warranty. For example, the FSF's order page says, "All items are provided ``as is'', with no warranty of any kind." The issues you raised earlier aren't a cause for concern because this only affects the warranty sections of the GPL, and only with regard to a commercial vendor.
The GPL seems to claim that you have no rights to modification at all without the rights granted by the GPL.
It may be mistaken about that, but I stand by my point that "if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights." That is, the GPL may be implying that copyright holders have more authority than they do, but unless the GPL uses that to restrict your rights, your point is moot.
Does it not?
Indeed, the right to create derivative (that is, modified) versions of a copyrighted work is held by the copyright holder. Fair use doesn't allow you to do anything you want, just because it's for your own use. It only allows certain things, such as parody, criticism, backup copies, etc. Of course, making backup copies doesn't involve modifying the work. So, you could make a parody of Emacs and avoid the GPL that way, if it was truly a parody. But in the grand scheme of things, fair use is not an effective way for someone to get around the GPL.
Hey, I did refer to it as, "the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed". I'm aware that it's possible to implicitly agree to something. However, I find it hard to swallow that an agreement one finds in a box after having paid for a product constitutes a "contract" under the UCC. I think the "agreement" referred to in the UCC has to be made before the sale.
Also, this whole thread started when I disagreed with someone who said that: if the GPL is enforceable, that implies that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable, and would set a precedent for the validity of shrink-wrap licenses. Since the enforceability of the GPL via a copyright infringement suit is, as you said, not controversial, it has no real bearing on the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses, and is certainly not precedent setting. In contrast, the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses varies among jurisdictions.
I don't think cost has much to do with it. If a doctor or lawyer provides free services to you, but then proceeds to act negligently, that could be cause for losing his license.
There are specific laws regarding medical licenses and membership in the Bar. The only reason you have implied warranty rights for goods is that they are given to you by the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC does not apply if you get something for free (as in beer), because no sale occurs.
In any case, cost has really nothing to the with the GPL or the issue at hand. What this means is that the GPL is trying to take away your right to a warranty, and thus requires agreement - which puts it in the same position as other shrink wrap licenses.
My position was quite clear in my last message. Under current law, any implied warranty could only exist between you and the person who sold you the software, not between you and the copyright holder. It is my position that if, for example, Red Hat sold you software, without telling you in advance that there is no warranty, they would be required to provide the standard implied warranty. If Red Hat told you in advance of the sale that there was no warranty, they would not have to provide one.
i.e. If you did not agree to the GPL beforehand, but then bought a piece of software and found the GPL inside, the GPL would be in the same position as if it were a MS Eula, because the GPL is not a pure right granting document as you argued it was earlier - it requires prior agreement, and thus faces the same criticisms faced by shrink wrap licenses.
Indeed, the GPL would be in the same position as any other EULA. If the box didn't say "no warranty" on the outside, you would have a warranty from whoever sold you the box (but not from the copyright holder). Other provisions of the GPL would come into effect only if the purchaser wished to exercise the additional rights granted by the GPL. The difference with most EULAs is that they do not grant additional rights, so there is no incentive to assent to them after the sale.
Modification of the software for my own use should be outside the scope of the GPL, just as usage is outside the scope of the GPL. However the GPL is worded in such a way that it claims that I have no right to modify the code besides what the GPL grants me.
Yes, but if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights. Also, fair use does not grant you the unlimited right to modify copyrighted works for your own use.
1. The GPL disclaims warranties. Now it is not unreasonable to suppose that I have some rights to redress if the software fails to function as specified (e.g. due to negligence on part of the author), and the GPL is trying to take away this right.
Implied warranties only exist because of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, that only applies if you purchase a copy of the software. If you obtain software from someone at no cost, you have no reason to expect a warranty.
If you purchase the software (say from Red Hat), then you do have a warranty by default. Red Hat should (and probably does) include a notice at some point during the purchase process that there in no warranty, which would exempt them from that requirement. If Red Hat does not do so, you do get a warranty, but that warranty is provided by Red Hat, not by the copyright holder of the software they are selling.
However, I would think that I have a fair use right to modify the software for my own use, but the GPL claims that pure modifications falls under the scope of the GPL and requires compliance with the GPL.
Can you provide an example of circumstances in which modification of software for your own use would not be compliant with the GPL?
You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.
In fact yes, you do.
I'm confused. You say my last sentence is wrong. You then say "you do", so you presumably disagreeing with the clause that says "you don't". But that clause merely states that you don't need to sign an agreement to be granted additional rights. Certainly, if you make use of those additional rights, you must assent to the terms of the agreement giving you those rights. In fact, everything you wrote seems correct, and I don't see how it's inconsistent with what I wrote.
Oh, come on. The GPL is rather long. I'm not going to go through the whole thing and reword it. My point is if it says "you may do A, provided that you also do B and C", that is equivalent to "you may do A and B and C (logical "and", that is)", assuming that the user has no right to do A independent of the additional grant of rights.
There is a difference between a grant of rights and a grant of rights upon conditions, only if the conditions restrict the user in ways which the user would not be restricted were no such grant given. If the conditions only restrict the additional granted rights, the grant of rights with conditions is equivalent to a more narrow grant of rights without conditions.
That was a semantic error on my part. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense to talk about violating the GPL or agreeing to it, since the GPL is simply a grant of rights by the copyright holder to the general public. Basically, the GPL says (in part), "In addition to your rights under copyright law, you may also do any of the following (1) distribute a binary with source; (2) distribute a binary with an offer to provide source; (3) distribute the source code by itself; etc."
The reason you don't have to "obey" the GPL isn't so much that you haven't signed it, it's that there isn't anything to obey. You can do various things under fair-use copyright law, you can do various other things under the additional rights given by the GPL, and anything else prohibited by copyright law is illegal. Looking at the GPL in this way, there's nothing to violate. If you distribute a binary without source and without an offer to provide source, you're simply doing something that the copyright law prohibits, and neither fair use nor the GPL allows. The GPL never needs to say "you can't distribute a binary without source" because that is illegal anyway, unless expressly allowed by the copyright holder.
Case 4: Free (as in beer) software under a restrictive EULA: Your analysis is correct, since the UCC doesn't apply, and you can't claim you own a copy of the software.
I forgot to point out that they could only sue for copyright violations, not breach of contract, since click-through/shrink-wrap contracts aren't binding.
Key point: all actions which violate the GPL would be copyright violations were the user not granted rights under the GPL. If someone violates the GPL, they cannot be held liable for violating the GPL, because they did not sign it. Rather, they can be held liable for statutory copyright violations, since they had no right to (for example) distribute the program, except under an agreement they violated.
Case 1: Purchased software with a restrictive EULA: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you own the thing you purchased. It is my position that unless you signed something to the contrary, your rights are exactly those rights you would have had if no EULA were included. If perchance some EULA included rights in addition to the implied rights you get by paying for the software, you would have to abide by all the conditions of the EULA if and only if you wished to exercise those additional rights. Most rights written in EULAs are implied in the UCC anyway, so you don't need to agree to an EULA to have the right to use software you purchased, for example.
Case 2 & 3: GPL software, either purchased or not: You can either use the software as you would if no license were included, or under the terms of the GPL. If no license were included, you could use the program, make backups, etc., but you could not distribute it. You claim:
In the case of the GPL, you're not just giving me additional rights. You're giving me additional rights on condition. You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it.
However, the GPL demands a code of conduct only if you do something that is otherwise illegal. By way of analogy, let's say that I tell you "You can burn down my house (distribute a binary of my copyrighted program) if you pay me $1 millon (include the source code)." Then you burn down my house (distribute a binary), but don't pay me anything (don't provide source), claiming "You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it." I reply, "You are quite correct: you have no legal obligation to pay me $1 million (include source code)." I then proceed to have you arrested for arson (sued for copyright violations).
Case 4: Free (as in beer) software under a restrictive EULA: Your analysis is correct, since the UCC doesn't apply, and you can't claim you own a copy of the software.
I think my position demonstrates consistency in my treatment of the GPL and EULAs.
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
(1) Imagine you receive a disk from me with a file foo.c on it. The first line of this file is: /* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter */ No other copyright notice or license notice is given.
What rights do you have? Under US copyright law, you can compile and use foo.c, and make copies for archival purposes.
What rights do you not have? You cannot distribute copies of my code to third parties. You cannot distrbiute binaries without source (or with source, for that matter) to third parties.
(2) Imagine you receive a disk from me, with a file foo.c on it. The file states: /* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.*/
What rights do you have? All the rights in (1), plus some additional rights, if you follow the terms of the license which gives you these additional rights.
What rights do you not have? Since you did not sign the GPL, you are not bound to obey it. However, whether or not you agree to the GPL, the code is still copyrighted by me. So, if you do not agree to the GPL, you will have exactly the same rights as you would in (1). Note the in (1) you did not have the right to distribute binaries without source.
Just because you didn't agree not to distribute copies of my binary without source, doesn't magically give you the right to do what would be illegal under ordinary copyright law.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic. A sticker prominently states: "By opening this package you agree to the terms of the End User License Agreement." You open the package, and find an EULA that says: "Every time you run this program, you must dump a glass of milk on your head. If you do not agree to these conditions, you must destroy the disk." Because you have not signed the agreement, you throw it away, and have the same rights as you would in (1).
In conclusion, under normal copyright law, the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed is compatible with both the validity of the GPL and the invalidity of shrink-wrap licenses. This is not having things two ways: the asymmetry exists because the GPL gives you additional rights, while shrink-wrap takes away rights. You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
Isn't this exactly what UCITA promises to make binding. This is the kind of crap that's going to come up if UCITA is passed. In effect throwing away centuries of precedence, just like the DCMA has done with 'fair use' law.
As luck would have it, Slade's actions will still be illegal under UCITA. Remember, he is distributing binaries that include material copyrighted by John Carmack. Without the permission of Carmack, this is completely illegal. It so happens that Carmack has given him (and everyone else) permission to do this provided he complies with a few conditions, including either:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
These conditions are not contigent on whether the recipients want source code or not. Even if I tell Slade not to give me the source, if Slade gives me a binary, it must include either the source, or an offer to give me the source. If it does not, he has failed to fulfill the conditions specified by Carmack that gave him the right to give me the binary in the first place. Thus, he has violated Carmack's copyright. Even if the people Slade gave the binary to had signed agreements in advance, saying that they didn't wish to receive source code or an offer for source code, and that they would never sue Slade for any reason whatsoever, Carmack could still sue Slade, since it's Carmack's copyright here.
Since Slade's actions would be illegal even if his recipients were signing that GPL waiver in ink, UCITA shouldn't affect this case at all.
If I go into a store, and buy boxed copies of Windows 98 and Red Hat Linux, I assume by default that I have certain fair use rights for backup copies, reverse engineering, etc. The GPL gives me rights in addition to my fair use rights. Shrink-wrap licenses tend to take away fair use rights, without any notice before I buy the product, or with any legally binding waiver on my part.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights, it adds a certain set of rights if you fulfill all the conditions.
That money comes from me loading that banner, and me seeing it, which takes both *my* bandwith and *my* time...Maybe I have no problem with them draining away my life to fill the coporate coffers. Maybe I enjoy being screwed by ``new media'' conglomerates.
Yeah, damn it! How dare they force you to go to their site and look at their content, seeing banner ads in the process.
Don't want to waste time and bandwidth seeing Yahoo's banner ads? Don't visit www.yahoo.com. Sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
Folks,
You reap what you sow.
You have just set back the computer industry six years or more [Emphasis mine]
There seems to be some confusion here. This is /., not the U.S. Department of Justice.
This will be the ultimate IT manager nightmare, because they will have be current on multiple competing versions of Windows, Linux, BeOS and whatever x86-compatible operating system comes along the line.
Actually, OS competition seems to have been forcing companies (*cough* MS *cough*) to make better products. For example, do you really think Windows 2000 would have its UNIXish features if it weren't for the surge in popularity of Linux and *BSD? So why will competition set the industry back? You seem to be arguing that OSes require a natural monopoly like local utilities, but if that is the case, the standard course of action would be for the government to strictly regulate MS's actions, just as local utilities are strictly regulated. You can't have an unregulated natural monopoly without gross abuse by the monopolizing company. (I don't think that OSes require a natural monopoly, but it sounds like you do, which defeats your argument against MS being tried.)
It seems to be that this technology would work equally well using modern technology, i.e. a computer, and would be far simpler to implement. Can anyone explain? I suppose that it would take longer to crack using DNA molecules?
DNA sequencing isn't modern technology?!
Seriously, the way the technique works, if I understand correcly, is that the message is placed in between two known but secret primers, and then somehow mixed into some organism's DNA, which could have hundreds of millions, or even billions, of nucleotides. Sequencing DNA is nontrivial, unlike a computer, where one can scan a multi-gigabyte hard drive in minutes. It would probably take the equivalent of something like the Human Genome Project to sequence the organism's genome and find a single message. However, because of the way DNA works, if you know the primers, you can directly snip out the part with the message, and sequence just that.
People who have 7 figures have -accountants-, and minions to do their computer stuff. This is for Joe Stiff, who makes under $100000 a year. For them, it's very useful, not dead at all.
Having 7 figures to deposit in a bank doesn't imply one is making 7 figures per year. For example, a person in their 50s saving for retirement should probably have more than one year's income saved up.
One word: stock. (It so happens that eBay does turn a profit, though.)
Isn't this what the machines did in the Matrix to enslave humanity?
I believe they made use of the human body's previously unknown ability to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Now in the case of other knowledge, its entirely possible that one might d/l all of mathematics and not understand any of it. Your brain might simply not have the interconects that need to grow in order to think about a given subject. Similarly, one could d/l all of human history, be able to give names and dates and places of interest, but not be able to reason about those, thus missing the analysis that someone who understands history could make. I don't know how you could download understanding short of instructing the growth of interconects in the brain.
You're starting with the assumption that any information download to the brain must necessarily place the information into long-term semantic memory (the kind that lets you win Jeopardy), and then coming to the somewhat obvious conclusion that this would have rather limited applications. The real breakthrough would be the ability to store stuff in your procedural memory, so that in addition to knowing the definition of an integral, you know how to integrate, for example. After all, your understanding of mathematics is ultimately due to the arrangement of neurons in your brain, so there is no reason in principle why it couldn't be expanded by messing with your neurons. It would obviously be extremely difficult, but I think we all know that.
As for your point about adding interconnects, how else would we be downloading the information in the first place? I thought the whole point was that we'd be screwing with the gray matter. Granted, the original article doesn't have anything to do with adding interconnects, but it doesn't have anything to do directly with adding information to the brain either.
Your budget integrated system could have everything integrated into that chip. Video, sound, I/O. Is it possible to make a chip that you could just plug your keyboard, mouse, monitor into (not the chip literally, but so there is no external logic)?
You need a certain minimal amount of external circuitry because of the various voltage requirements of external devices. Also, you still need to use an external general-purpose system bus unless you want insane numbers of pins and rapid obselecence (as in, your CPU doesn't won't connect to these VR goggles, so you need to buy a new CPU).
C++ C + 2
I bet you meant to say, C++ < C + 2
Right?
Then, we shall see whether Slashdotters approve of massive copying and redistribution of those binaries, in the name of liberty, among the could-care-less-about-GPL-I-want-to-play-Quake community -- notwithstanding Court Orders to the contrary.
Yes, that could be quite amusing :)
Yes, so to repeat, the GPL is not a purely right granting document as you have been arguing previously. Since there is a give and take, it is a contract, which requires agreement to be binding. In an earlier post, you stated that the GPL does not require agreement because it is purely right giving, but it seems that you do not think that this is the case now - so the GPL is subject to the issues which I raised earlier (I won't bother repeating them here, please review the previous posts in this thread if you desire). Conclusion, GPL == shrink wrap license.
OK. The GPL is purely right-granting with one exception, the warranty in the case that you purchase the software and are not warned in advance that there is no warranty. However, I have consistently stated that this single right-taking provision is not binding. In contrast, most shrink-wrap licenses consist entirely of right-taking provisions, which I also consider to be non-binding. If a shrink-wrap license included any right-giving provisions, those additional rights could be taken advantage of only with the assent to any right-taking provisions in the shrink-wrap license. There is no inconsistency in my treatment of shrink-wrap licenses and the GPL. There is justifiable inconsistency in my treatement of right-giving and right-taking provisions, and there is a large difference in the relative proportion of such provisions between the GPL and shrink-wrap licenses. That is all.
Just because there are certain conditions in which the warranty section of the GPL could require agreement to be binding, does not mean that the entire GPL requires agreement to be binding. Moreover, in almost all GPL violations, such as Slade's, the violator is doing something that would be illegal had they not agreed to the GPL.
If I bought the software and desire it to modify it for my own use, the GPL claims that modification requires compliance with all the requirements of the GPL - including giving up my right to a warranty.
I you have a warranty from the seller for whatever, the GPL does not make you give that up. If you don't have a warranty from the seller, you don't have a warranty from anyone in the first place.
Cost has nothing to do with free software in the GNU sense.
Of course not, I never said it does. I'm saying that whether or not something is a sale affects whether there is an implied warranty or not.
And your rights transcend the UCC; as I understand it, in some states, you can sue the manufacturer of a product for negligence.
Cost may not have to do with freedom in the software sense, but it does affect legal liability. If you are aware of a state law that allows distributors of free stuff to be sued for negligence, please cite it.
And what if the person selling you the software were the copyright holder?
Then they'd be required to provide an implied warranty unless they said ahead of time that they wouldn't. When I said, "not the copyright holder", I assumed that the seller and copyright holder were distinct. The copyright holder would not be required to provide a warranty for the same reason that the other 6 billion people who aren't the seller aren't required to provide one.
That was not your position earlier. Your position was that the GPL was different from other shrink wrap licenses, and did not require agreement because it was a pure granting of rights. If you think now that this is not the case, all the issues I raised earlier become cause for convern.
In the limited case where a GPL'd product is being sold, in exchange for money, and the buyer is not told up front that the product has no warranty, the GPL is in the same boat as other EULAs. That is the one case we've both agreed this is a conflict. It's not a concern because anyone commercially selling should know to say "no warranty" up front to avoid the implied warranty. For example, the FSF's order page says, "All items are provided ``as is'', with no warranty of any kind." The issues you raised earlier aren't a cause for concern because this only affects the warranty sections of the GPL, and only with regard to a commercial vendor.
The GPL seems to claim that you have no rights to modification at all without the rights granted by the GPL.
It may be mistaken about that, but I stand by my point that "if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights." That is, the GPL may be implying that copyright holders have more authority than they do, but unless the GPL uses that to restrict your rights, your point is moot.
Does it not?
Indeed, the right to create derivative (that is, modified) versions of a copyrighted work is held by the copyright holder. Fair use doesn't allow you to do anything you want, just because it's for your own use. It only allows certain things, such as parody, criticism, backup copies, etc. Of course, making backup copies doesn't involve modifying the work. So, you could make a parody of Emacs and avoid the GPL that way, if it was truly a parody. But in the grand scheme of things, fair use is not an effective way for someone to get around the GPL.
Hey, I did refer to it as, "the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed". I'm aware that it's possible to implicitly agree to something. However, I find it hard to swallow that an agreement one finds in a box after having paid for a product constitutes a "contract" under the UCC. I think the "agreement" referred to in the UCC has to be made before the sale.
Also, this whole thread started when I disagreed with someone who said that: if the GPL is enforceable, that implies that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable, and would set a precedent for the validity of shrink-wrap licenses. Since the enforceability of the GPL via a copyright infringement suit is, as you said, not controversial, it has no real bearing on the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses, and is certainly not precedent setting. In contrast, the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses varies among jurisdictions.
I don't think cost has much to do with it. If a doctor or lawyer provides free services to you, but then proceeds to act negligently, that could be cause for losing his license.
There are specific laws regarding medical licenses and membership in the Bar. The only reason you have implied warranty rights for goods is that they are given to you by the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC does not apply if you get something for free (as in beer), because no sale occurs.
In any case, cost has really nothing to the with the GPL or the issue at hand. What this means is that the GPL is trying to take away your right to a warranty, and thus requires agreement - which puts it in the same position as other shrink wrap licenses.
My position was quite clear in my last message. Under current law, any implied warranty could only exist between you and the person who sold you the software, not between you and the copyright holder. It is my position that if, for example, Red Hat sold you software, without telling you in advance that there is no warranty, they would be required to provide the standard implied warranty. If Red Hat told you in advance of the sale that there was no warranty, they would not have to provide one.
i.e. If you did not agree to the GPL beforehand, but then bought a piece of software and found the GPL inside, the GPL would be in the same position as if it were a MS Eula, because the GPL is not a pure right granting document as you argued it was earlier - it requires prior agreement, and thus faces the same criticisms faced by shrink wrap licenses.
Indeed, the GPL would be in the same position as any other EULA. If the box didn't say "no warranty" on the outside, you would have a warranty from whoever sold you the box (but not from the copyright holder). Other provisions of the GPL would come into effect only if the purchaser wished to exercise the additional rights granted by the GPL. The difference with most EULAs is that they do not grant additional rights, so there is no incentive to assent to them after the sale.
Modification of the software for my own use should be outside the scope of the GPL, just as usage is outside the scope of the GPL. However the GPL is worded in such a way that it claims that I have no right to modify the code besides what the GPL grants me.
Yes, but if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights. Also, fair use does not grant you the unlimited right to modify copyrighted works for your own use.
1. The GPL disclaims warranties. Now it is not unreasonable to suppose that I have some rights to redress if the software fails to function as specified (e.g. due to negligence on part of the author), and the GPL is trying to take away this right.
Implied warranties only exist because of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, that only applies if you purchase a copy of the software. If you obtain software from someone at no cost, you have no reason to expect a warranty.
If you purchase the software (say from Red Hat), then you do have a warranty by default. Red Hat should (and probably does) include a notice at some point during the purchase process that there in no warranty, which would exempt them from that requirement. If Red Hat does not do so, you do get a warranty, but that warranty is provided by Red Hat, not by the copyright holder of the software they are selling.
However, I would think that I have a fair use right to modify the software for my own use, but the GPL claims that pure modifications falls under the scope of the GPL and requires compliance with the GPL.
Can you provide an example of circumstances in which modification of software for your own use would not be compliant with the GPL?
You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.
In fact yes, you do.
I'm confused. You say my last sentence is wrong. You then say "you do", so you presumably disagreeing with the clause that says "you don't". But that clause merely states that you don't need to sign an agreement to be granted additional rights. Certainly, if you make use of those additional rights, you must assent to the terms of the agreement giving you those rights. In fact, everything you wrote seems correct, and I don't see how it's inconsistent with what I wrote.
Oh, come on. The GPL is rather long. I'm not going to go through the whole thing and reword it. My point is if it says "you may do A, provided that you also do B and C", that is equivalent to "you may do A and B and C (logical "and", that is)", assuming that the user has no right to do A independent of the additional grant of rights.
There is a difference between a grant of rights and a grant of rights upon conditions, only if the conditions restrict the user in ways which the user would not be restricted were no such grant given. If the conditions only restrict the additional granted rights, the grant of rights with conditions is equivalent to a more narrow grant of rights without conditions.
That was a semantic error on my part. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense to talk about violating the GPL or agreeing to it, since the GPL is simply a grant of rights by the copyright holder to the general public. Basically, the GPL says (in part), "In addition to your rights under copyright law, you may also do any of the following (1) distribute a binary with source; (2) distribute a binary with an offer to provide source; (3) distribute the source code by itself; etc."
The reason you don't have to "obey" the GPL isn't so much that you haven't signed it, it's that there isn't anything to obey. You can do various things under fair-use copyright law, you can do various other things under the additional rights given by the GPL, and anything else prohibited by copyright law is illegal. Looking at the GPL in this way, there's nothing to violate. If you distribute a binary without source and without an offer to provide source, you're simply doing something that the copyright law prohibits, and neither fair use nor the GPL allows. The GPL never needs to say "you can't distribute a binary without source" because that is illegal anyway, unless expressly allowed by the copyright holder.
Case 4: Free (as in beer) software under a restrictive EULA: Your analysis is correct, since the UCC doesn't apply, and you can't claim you own a copy of the software.
I forgot to point out that they could only sue for copyright violations, not breach of contract, since click-through/shrink-wrap contracts aren't binding.
Key point: all actions which violate the GPL would be copyright violations were the user not granted rights under the GPL. If someone violates the GPL, they cannot be held liable for violating the GPL, because they did not sign it. Rather, they can be held liable for statutory copyright violations, since they had no right to (for example) distribute the program, except under an agreement they violated.
Case 1: Purchased software with a restrictive EULA: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you own the thing you purchased. It is my position that unless you signed something to the contrary, your rights are exactly those rights you would have had if no EULA were included. If perchance some EULA included rights in addition to the implied rights you get by paying for the software, you would have to abide by all the conditions of the EULA if and only if you wished to exercise those additional rights. Most rights written in EULAs are implied in the UCC anyway, so you don't need to agree to an EULA to have the right to use software you purchased, for example.
Case 2 & 3: GPL software, either purchased or not: You can either use the software as you would if no license were included, or under the terms of the GPL. If no license were included, you could use the program, make backups, etc., but you could not distribute it. You claim:
In the case of the GPL, you're not just giving me additional rights. You're giving me additional rights on condition. You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it.
However, the GPL demands a code of conduct only if you do something that is otherwise illegal. By way of analogy, let's say that I tell you "You can burn down my house (distribute a binary of my copyrighted program) if you pay me $1 millon (include the source code)." Then you burn down my house (distribute a binary), but don't pay me anything (don't provide source), claiming "You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it." I reply, "You are quite correct: you have no legal obligation to pay me $1 million (include source code)." I then proceed to have you arrested for arson (sued for copyright violations).
Case 4: Free (as in beer) software under a restrictive EULA: Your analysis is correct, since the UCC doesn't apply, and you can't claim you own a copy of the software.
I think my position demonstrates consistency in my treatment of the GPL and EULAs.
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
(1) Imagine you receive a disk from me with a file foo.c on it. The first line of this file is:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter */
No other copyright notice or license notice is given.
What rights do you have? Under US copyright law, you can compile and use foo.c, and make copies for archival purposes.
What rights do you not have? You cannot distribute copies of my code to third parties. You cannot distrbiute binaries without source (or with source, for that matter) to third parties.
(2) Imagine you receive a disk from me, with a file foo.c on it. The file states:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.*/
What rights do you have? All the rights in (1), plus some additional rights, if you follow the terms of the license which gives you these additional rights.
What rights do you not have? Since you did not sign the GPL, you are not bound to obey it. However, whether or not you agree to the GPL, the code is still copyrighted by me. So, if you do not agree to the GPL, you will have exactly the same rights as you would in (1). Note the in (1) you did not have the right to distribute binaries without source.
Just because you didn't agree not to distribute copies of my binary without source, doesn't magically give you the right to do what would be illegal under ordinary copyright law.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic. A sticker prominently states: "By opening this package you agree to the terms of the End User License Agreement." You open the package, and find an EULA that says: "Every time you run this program, you must dump a glass of milk on your head. If you do not agree to these conditions, you must destroy the disk." Because you have not signed the agreement, you throw it away, and have the same rights as you would in (1).
In conclusion, under normal copyright law, the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed is compatible with both the validity of the GPL and the invalidity of shrink-wrap licenses. This is not having things two ways: the asymmetry exists because the GPL gives you additional rights, while shrink-wrap takes away rights. You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
Isn't this exactly what UCITA promises to make binding. This is the kind of crap that's going to come up if UCITA is passed. In effect throwing away centuries of precedence, just like the DCMA has done with 'fair use' law.
As luck would have it, Slade's actions will still be illegal under UCITA. Remember, he is distributing binaries that include material copyrighted by John Carmack. Without the permission of Carmack, this is completely illegal. It so happens that Carmack has given him (and everyone else) permission to do this provided he complies with a few conditions, including either:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
These conditions are not contigent on whether the recipients want source code or not. Even if I tell Slade not to give me the source, if Slade gives me a binary, it must include either the source, or an offer to give me the source. If it does not, he has failed to fulfill the conditions specified by Carmack that gave him the right to give me the binary in the first place. Thus, he has violated Carmack's copyright. Even if the people Slade gave the binary to had signed agreements in advance, saying that they didn't wish to receive source code or an offer for source code, and that they would never sue Slade for any reason whatsoever, Carmack could still sue Slade, since it's Carmack's copyright here.
Since Slade's actions would be illegal even if his recipients were signing that GPL waiver in ink, UCITA shouldn't affect this case at all.
If I go into a store, and buy boxed copies of Windows 98 and Red Hat Linux, I assume by default that I have certain fair use rights for backup copies, reverse engineering, etc. The GPL gives me rights in addition to my fair use rights. Shrink-wrap licenses tend to take away fair use rights, without any notice before I buy the product, or with any legally binding waiver on my part.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights, it adds a certain set of rights if you fulfill all the conditions.
I really wanted Austin Powers 2, so I spent 3 days piecing it together.
You don't think 3 days of your time are worth the $15 it would take to buy the movie?!
That money comes from me loading that banner, and me seeing it, which takes both *my* bandwith and *my* time...Maybe I have no problem with them draining away my life to fill the coporate coffers. Maybe I enjoy being screwed by ``new media'' conglomerates.
Yeah, damn it! How dare they force you to go to their site and look at their content, seeing banner ads in the process.
Don't want to waste time and bandwidth seeing Yahoo's banner ads? Don't visit www.yahoo.com. Sheesh.