>I'd define "world without information boundaries" as "a world in which no-one has an economic incentive to deny you access to any information that would be useful to you for some legitimate purpose".
What's your legitimate purpose for understanding the CSS system? Are you sure it's legitimate. Because, you know, you kind of look like one of those filthy terrorist supporting h4xx0rz.
You see what I'm saying? There's always a good reason for denying access by default.
>Because the transfer of money is explicitly limited by the GPL, it does not meet these criteria. Nothing in the GPL allows Company X (or anyone other than the original copyright holder) to sell the software! In fact, it states explicitly that one may only charge for the actual cost of copying and distribution of the media containing the software (Section 1).
Say what?
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
I believe that this fully supports harlows_monkey's point 4 that company Y doesn't need the copyright owner's permission to sell the copies that they have (which company X made). Consider that point in isolation in terms of section 109 and it's pretty hard to argue with.
Where it gets interesting is in point 5. Here I agree with you that it could be argued that the GPL obligations on distribution allow the rights owners to assert their Title 17 section 106 (3) exclusive rights to authorize (or in this case not authorize) sale/transfer to the public.
It would be a short argument though, because section 109 is absolutely explicit that it trumps section 106 (3). harlows_monkeys was perhaps over-simplifying a little when he said that "[company Y] are under no GPL obligation to provide [...] source to the end user". I believe that they are technically under an obligation to do so, otherwise they have no (section 106 (3)) authorization to distribute, but Title 17 section 109 overrides that and removes their need to have any authorization.
In a fight between the rights owners arguing section 106 (3) in the context of the GPL, and company Y arguing section 109, I'd expect a reasonable jury to come down on the side of section 109, as it's very clear and explicit.
Incidentally, I'll again be clear that I make no distinction between "sale" and "distribution", these are just the short headline terms used by Title 17 and the GPL respectively. They work out to the same thing, as Title 17 actually refers to "sale or other transfer of ownership" and "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of".
What with them having argued so strenously (in USia and EUia) that these are "an integral part of the OS". Let's see how that assertion pans out in practice.
Actually, I've just noticed that I didn't make any distinction between distributing and selling, so I'm inclined to believe that you're either incapable of following a thread of discussion, or are deliberately answering questions that I didn't ask because you can't find an answer to the one that I did. Feel free to raise the tone by proving me wrong.
> You forgot the part where Company X acquires the GPL software in the first place. They did NOT buy it in the sense that one buys a book. They licensed it. In doing so, they bound themselves to all the terms and conditions of the license.
I asked:
> OK, now you tell me, quoting from the GPL, and referring to the situation presented by your parent, what terms and conditions of the GPL that company X is in violation of if company Y distributes copies without source or a promise to provide source.
Do you understand the question? Do you understand what I'm asking? If company X has already fulfilled their GPL obligations, what further obligation do they have to provide source to people who whom they did not distribute executables?
Can you answer this question, or do you want to keep answering different ones that I didn't ask?
> Remember, the GPL says basically "If you create a copy of give it to someone, anyone who gets a copy can request the source code from you and you have to provide it" It really is that simple.
I don't remember it saying that, because it doesn't. Then again, I've read the GPL, especially Section 3 and you - oh so very clearly - haven't.
And I don't give a rat's arse if they're open source. I want them fast, I want them prominently available from hardware vendors and/or distributors, and most of all, I don't want to have to play a Towers of Hannoi with dependencies and command lines to get them to install and work on a stock Red Hat or SuSE system.
Oh, I know it should be simple enough, but it isn't. Google for problems with (e.g.) NVidia drivers with SuSE distros and that should give you a sample of the fun that awaits. For every twitchy zealot who'll chime in saying "Well, it just worked on my system!" (even though Linux cognitive dissonance means it probably didn't "just work") there will be someone who eventually got it to work after hours of hacking and begging for help in forums, someone who gave up on it, and someone who thinks it worked but who is still using old drivers without knowing it because they missed the "Wrong version of fleem" error in the forty screens of script output that ended with an "Install complete."
Thanks for that. I should really take a break and calm down, but it irrates the hell out of me when people start spouting off that "The GPL says this..." and "The GPL really means that...", and "IANALAIHERTL (I Am Not A Lawyer And I Haven't Even Read The Law) but...", when it's abundantly clear that they haven't read, understood, or considered either the GPL nor copyright law. As the misunderstandings seem to flow from reading unchallenged assertions, I tend to get caught up in a flurry of refutations. I suppose in the end it doesn't really matter if Joe Nobody doesn't understand the GPL though - as long as the people releasing their code under it understand it, that should suffice.
Have you read the GPL? If not, please go and do so now. If you have, please refresh yourself. I mean, actually do it. Pay particular attention to section 3.
Done? Now, read the parent post again. Do you see the part in bold? Have you read that?
OK, now you tell me, quoting from the GPL, and referring to the situation presented by your parent, what terms and conditions of the GPL that company X is in violation of if company Y distributes copies without source or a promise to provide source.
On your last issue, a "license" is not a "copy" as defined by Title 17. So what's the relevance?
>> But company X is only required to give the code to whomever it was distributed to, by them - Company Y. Company Y doesn't have to follow any licensing agreements because the right of first sale allows them to sell without any permission from the copyright holder.
>No.
Yes.
>It allows them to sell their *single* copy to someone else, thus depriving them of that copy.
Which is what we're talking about here. Company X makes multiple copies, each one completely fulfilling their GPL license obligations. It sells them (embedded in a physical ROMS) to company Y. Company Y can then sell each one without worrying about the copyright. As long as it isn't duplicating them, which it isn't, that being the original poster's point.
>It does *not* allow them to circumvent copyright law.
Company Y distributes (without copying) exes built from your GPLd source without providing the source or making any offer to do so.
What, specifically, is your redress against them?
They're not copying. Company X did that, and fulfilled their GPL obligations. Can you use your copyright to prevent company Y's distribution-without-duplication? If so, why?
> "If you look at the GPL, it states that a written offer for the source code must exist that offers the entire source to any third party to eligible to receive it, i.e. someone receiving a binary copy of the software."
> Company X would still have to provide the source to those who owned the devices.
Have you been able to find the parts of the GPL that support those assertions? No, you haven't, because they're not there.
You're now changing your story to "obligated to provide source code for the changes that were made" without specifying who you are obligated to provide the changes to, which is very different from claiming that "any third party" / "someone receiving a binary copy" / "those who [own] the devices" can get it.
I doubt that you have actually read the GPL, let alone understood it. You certainly didn't read or take the time to understand the original issue.
On the rest of it, we broadly agree and I think it would take case law to split the hairs on our very slightly different interpretations that lead to the same conclusion.
I was really playing devil's advocate in suggesting that you (as a rights holder) could argue (note: "argue") that Section 3 applies to any distribution, including individual unit sales. You'd have to argue that because company Y received value in terms of the GPLd code, they are bound by the license (even though it's not a contract). My point was that even if you argued that successfully (unlikely) then first sale doctrine would protect company Y from your only means of punishing them for the license violation.
It's a convoluted area. It might be the case that rights holders can (with a license rather than a contract) only prevent copying and not distribution. But consider the Creative Commons by-nd-nc, which is replete with restrictions on distribution as well as copying. They seem to think otherwise.
>If I distribute (software using GPL code) to the public, regardless of how many middlemen or confounding distribution schemes I can come up with...if it's available via amazon.com, newegg.com or ebay...then it's public.
And you'll be able to quote the parts of the GPL that say that your obligations extend beyond giving a full copy of the source to the people (the middlemen) to whom you (you personally) actually distribute, right?
I mean, you can actually quote that part about obligations extending to "the public", without caveats or alternatives, yes?
Perhaps you should actually go and read what the GPL says instead of what you think it says?
> If you take GPL code, use it in a product, you have to make the source available to the public
Why? Can you quote the part of the GPL that says that? Please be sure to include the clause that says "have to" and "to the public".
>In your example, it seems pretty clear to me that anyone who requests it, should legally be able to obtain a copy of the modified source from Company X
Again, quote the obligation on company X. Hint: can company X discharge their GPL obligations any other way than by making or offering to make the source available to third parties?
>Your point number 3. is completely false.
Point number 3 is completely true. You clearly haven't read the license. I'll quote it for you, highlighting the important bits.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* 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; or,
You know the difference between "or" and "and", right?
Despite your simplistic misunderstanding, the GPL is quite explicit on this, and the parent is absolutely correct.
> Any party which has access to the binary has the right to request the source.
Well, sure, anyone can go ahead and request the source, regardless of whether they have the binary or not. But that's not the point. The point is whether company X has an obligation to provide, or even an obligation to promise to provide the source. If they already gave the full source to everyone to whom they distributed the executables (which in this case is company Y and only company Y) then they have already discharged their GPL obligations and do not have any further obligation to provide source. If company Y loses their copy, company X doesn't even have to give them another. Please read the GPL Section 3 and note "one of" and "or".
Slashdot Mirror
>I'd define "world without information boundaries" as "a world in which no-one has an economic incentive to deny you access to any information that would be useful to you for some legitimate purpose".
What's your legitimate purpose for understanding the CSS system? Are you sure it's legitimate. Because, you know, you kind of look like one of those filthy terrorist supporting h4xx0rz.
You see what I'm saying? There's always a good reason for denying access by default.
>Because the transfer of money is explicitly limited by the GPL, it does not meet these criteria. Nothing in the GPL allows Company X (or anyone other than the original copyright holder) to sell the software! In fact, it states explicitly that one may only charge for the actual cost of copying and distribution of the media containing the software (Section 1).
Say what?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
I have no idea where you got that idea from.
"Long time courtroom loser and overpaid theoretical wafflespouter Lawrence Lessig"
OK, thanks for the considered reply, and apologies for slipping into ranting.
First, I'll draw your attention to Title 17 section 109.
I believe that this fully supports harlows_monkey's point 4 that company Y doesn't need the copyright owner's permission to sell the copies that they have (which company X made). Consider that point in isolation in terms of section 109 and it's pretty hard to argue with.
Where it gets interesting is in point 5. Here I agree with you that it could be argued that the GPL obligations on distribution allow the rights owners to assert their Title 17 section 106 (3) exclusive rights to authorize (or in this case not authorize) sale/transfer to the public.
It would be a short argument though, because section 109 is absolutely explicit that it trumps section 106 (3). harlows_monkeys was perhaps over-simplifying a little when he said that "[company Y] are under no GPL obligation to provide [...] source to the end user". I believe that they are technically under an obligation to do so, otherwise they have no (section 106 (3)) authorization to distribute, but Title 17 section 109 overrides that and removes their need to have any authorization.
In a fight between the rights owners arguing section 106 (3) in the context of the GPL, and company Y arguing section 109, I'd expect a reasonable jury to come down on the side of section 109, as it's very clear and explicit.
Incidentally, I'll again be clear that I make no distinction between "sale" and "distribution", these are just the short headline terms used by Title 17 and the GPL respectively. They work out to the same thing, as Title 17 actually refers to "sale or other transfer of ownership" and "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of".
What with them having argued so strenously (in USia and EUia) that these are "an integral part of the OS". Let's see how that assertion pans out in practice.
Actually, I've just noticed that I didn't make any distinction between distributing and selling, so I'm inclined to believe that you're either incapable of following a thread of discussion, or are deliberately answering questions that I didn't ask because you can't find an answer to the one that I did. Feel free to raise the tone by proving me wrong.
Your statement:
> You forgot the part where Company X acquires the GPL software in the first place. They did NOT buy it in the sense that one buys a book. They licensed it. In doing so, they bound themselves to all the terms and conditions of the license.
I asked:
> OK, now you tell me, quoting from the GPL, and referring to the situation presented by your parent, what terms and conditions of the GPL that company X is in violation of if company Y distributes copies without source or a promise to provide source.
Do you understand the question? Do you understand what I'm asking? If company X has already fulfilled their GPL obligations, what further obligation do they have to provide source to people who whom they did not distribute executables?
Can you answer this question, or do you want to keep answering different ones that I didn't ask?
> Remember, the GPL says basically "If you create a copy of give it to someone, anyone who gets a copy can request the source code from you and you have to provide it" It really is that simple.
I don't remember it saying that, because it doesn't. Then again, I've read the GPL, especially Section 3 and you - oh so very clearly - haven't.
Yes, that's a fair summary. Users are scum. You're maybe confusing me with one of those StarOffice guys getting paid by Sun.
But then I realised that "nearly" means "didn't", so there's no story.
And I don't give a rat's arse if they're open source. I want them fast, I want them prominently available from hardware vendors and/or distributors, and most of all, I don't want to have to play a Towers of Hannoi with dependencies and command lines to get them to install and work on a stock Red Hat or SuSE system.
Oh, I know it should be simple enough, but it isn't. Google for problems with (e.g.) NVidia drivers with SuSE distros and that should give you a sample of the fun that awaits. For every twitchy zealot who'll chime in saying "Well, it just worked on my system!" (even though Linux cognitive dissonance means it probably didn't "just work") there will be someone who eventually got it to work after hours of hacking and begging for help in forums, someone who gave up on it, and someone who thinks it worked but who is still using old drivers without knowing it because they missed the "Wrong version of fleem" error in the forty screens of script output that ended with an "Install complete."
Project Firefox.
Hmmh. They are correct. Your misconceptions don't interest me, Coward.
Thanks for that. I should really take a break and calm down, but it irrates the hell out of me when people start spouting off that "The GPL says this..." and "The GPL really means that...", and "IANALAIHERTL (I Am Not A Lawyer And I Haven't Even Read The Law) but...", when it's abundantly clear that they haven't read, understood, or considered either the GPL nor copyright law. As the misunderstandings seem to flow from reading unchallenged assertions, I tend to get caught up in a flurry of refutations. I suppose in the end it doesn't really matter if Joe Nobody doesn't understand the GPL though - as long as the people releasing their code under it understand it, that should suffice.
Have you read the GPL? If not, please go and do so now. If you have, please refresh yourself. I mean, actually do it. Pay particular attention to section 3.
Done? Now, read the parent post again. Do you see the part in bold? Have you read that?
OK, now you tell me, quoting from the GPL, and referring to the situation presented by your parent, what terms and conditions of the GPL that company X is in violation of if company Y distributes copies without source or a promise to provide source.
On your last issue, a "license" is not a "copy" as defined by Title 17. So what's the relevance?
"First sale" is just a shorthand. Read Title 17 Section 109 for the details.
And please try and get it through your head that the only person confusing "distrubution" with duplication here is you.
>> But company X is only required to give the code to whomever it was distributed to, by them - Company Y. Company Y doesn't have to follow any licensing agreements because the right of first sale allows them to sell without any permission from the copyright holder.
>No.
Yes.
>It allows them to sell their *single* copy to someone else, thus depriving them of that copy.
Which is what we're talking about here. Company X makes multiple copies, each one completely fulfilling their GPL license obligations. It sells them (embedded in a physical ROMS) to company Y. Company Y can then sell each one without worrying about the copyright. As long as it isn't duplicating them, which it isn't, that being the original poster's point.
>It does *not* allow them to circumvent copyright law.
Who said it did?
>I heard First Sale Doctrine also cures cancer. True story.
Film at 11?
It's very muddy. But let's ask it this way.
Company Y distributes (without copying) exes built from your GPLd source without providing the source or making any offer to do so.
What, specifically, is your redress against them?
They're not copying. Company X did that, and fulfilled their GPL obligations. Can you use your copyright to prevent company Y's distribution-without-duplication? If so, why?
> "If you look at the GPL, it states that a written offer for the source code must exist that offers the entire source to any third party to eligible to receive it, i.e. someone receiving a binary copy of the software."
> Company X would still have to provide the source to those who owned the devices.
Have you been able to find the parts of the GPL that support those assertions? No, you haven't, because they're not there.
You're now changing your story to "obligated to provide source code for the changes that were made" without specifying who you are obligated to provide the changes to, which is very different from claiming that "any third party" / "someone receiving a binary copy" / "those who [own] the devices" can get it.
I doubt that you have actually read the GPL, let alone understood it. You certainly didn't read or take the time to understand the original issue.
>I assumed the person I was replying to was talking about the scenario where the source code was not distributed along with the binary.
Fair enough, but the original poster was quite clear on this (point 3).
On the rest of it, we broadly agree and I think it would take case law to split the hairs on our very slightly different interpretations that lead to the same conclusion.
I was really playing devil's advocate in suggesting that you (as a rights holder) could argue (note: "argue") that Section 3 applies to any distribution, including individual unit sales. You'd have to argue that because company Y received value in terms of the GPLd code, they are bound by the license (even though it's not a contract). My point was that even if you argued that successfully (unlikely) then first sale doctrine would protect company Y from your only means of punishing them for the license violation.
It's a convoluted area. It might be the case that rights holders can (with a license rather than a contract) only prevent copying and not distribution. But consider the Creative Commons by-nd-nc, which is replete with restrictions on distribution as well as copying. They seem to think otherwise.
The last sentence makes perfect sense. We both agree that you're too lazy and incompetent to use Linux.
>If I distribute (software using GPL code) to the public, regardless of how many middlemen or confounding distribution schemes I can come up with...if it's available via amazon.com, newegg.com or ebay...then it's public.
And you'll be able to quote the parts of the GPL that say that your obligations extend beyond giving a full copy of the source to the people (the middlemen) to whom you (you personally) actually distribute, right?
I mean, you can actually quote that part about obligations extending to "the public", without caveats or alternatives, yes?
Go ahead.
Perhaps you should actually go and read what the GPL says instead of what you think it says?
> If you take GPL code, use it in a product, you have to make the source available to the public
Why? Can you quote the part of the GPL that says that? Please be sure to include the clause that says "have to" and "to the public".
>In your example, it seems pretty clear to me that anyone who requests it, should legally be able to obtain a copy of the modified source from Company X
Again, quote the obligation on company X. Hint: can company X discharge their GPL obligations any other way than by making or offering to make the source available to third parties?
>Your point number 3. is completely false.
Point number 3 is completely true. You clearly haven't read the license. I'll quote it for you, highlighting the important bits.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* 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; or,
You know the difference between "or" and "and", right?
Despite your simplistic misunderstanding, the GPL is quite explicit on this, and the parent is absolutely correct.
> Any party which has access to the binary has the right to request the source.
Well, sure, anyone can go ahead and request the source, regardless of whether they have the binary or not. But that's not the point. The point is whether company X has an obligation to provide, or even an obligation to promise to provide the source. If they already gave the full source to everyone to whom they distributed the executables (which in this case is company Y and only company Y) then they have already discharged their GPL obligations and do not have any further obligation to provide source. If company Y loses their copy, company X doesn't even have to give them another. Please read the GPL Section 3 and note "one of" and "or".