Re-read it. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that privity -- and contract law -- is not necessary, because copyright law governs copying.
Note how the GPL says "This software is yours to use." That means that no conditions apply. It also means that the disclaimer of warranty (which requires agreement to a contract) does not apply to anyone who merely uses the software and refrains from copying it.
-russ
Yes, the license is still the same. However, it's not a valid contract, and you need a contract to disclaim warranty.
Unless you're GM or GE, you're not going to be able to change the terms of a shrink-wrap license. However, any store that doesn't take back shrink-wrapped software is going to face great pressure from the industry. The validity of the shrink-wrap license is predicated on your ability to refuse it. If, in fact, you have no right, then the license is not a contract, and you're not bound by it.
And that's another thing: jurisdiction. The FSF claims that any license which dictates jurisdiction is not compatible with the GPL, because doing so imposes extra restrictions on the GPL'ed software.
-russ
In a non-UCITA state, you are wrong. Existing law requires that you have a chance to review the license, and accept or reject it. Current software distribution technology does not give you this opportunity. Once you have unpacked the software, it's too late. They're still bound by the license. You now have title to a copy of the software, and the copyright terms (the GPL) does not apply to you.
Those elements absent in the GPL are present in shrink-wrapped software. You are free to reject the terms presented to you and return the software to the store.
In Virginia, a UCITA state, you are allowed to condition a license upon performance. So that once the software has been installed, you may claim that the user should have gone looking for a license, and if they failed to, it's their tough luck. However, UCITA also requires a warranty on all software, so that the GPL terms have no effect.
In Maryland, also a UCITA state, there is a bill on the governor's desk which grants an exemption to open source software for which no license fee is charged. Once that law is signed and goes into effect, the GPL terms will be binding upon users (as opposed to distributors who are bound when they copy the software).
IANAL, but I had dinner with two lawyers (and if you're really well-informed, you can venture a good guess as to who they are) on Wednesday night. If you think hackers use impenetrable jargon, just listen to a pair of lawyers in the middle of a legal hacking session! It's enough to make your head spin.
BTW, it's not the whole GPL that can't be enforced. It's only the waiver of warranty.
Also BTW, try convincing Eben Moglen and/or RMS that the GPL is actually a contract. It isn't. They didn't intend it to be, and it wasn't written in the form of a contract.
-russ
No. There is no opportunity for acceptance or rejection. A contract *must* be accepted by both parties. All that's needed is to put the software inside a tarball, then to put it inside another tarball that contains "README" which offers the use of the software conditioned upon acceptance of the license. If you unpack the inner tarball, you have accepted the license. If you don't accept the license, you don't unpack the tarball. You may, if you wish, have a software agent which accepts the license for you. We can write a standard for the form of the license, so that in practice, you run "license" instead of "tar xfz". And you have pre-configured license with the licenses you will accept automatically.
RMS doesn't like this idea because the contract could specify terms of use, and he is unalterably opposed to any kind of use license (and I don't blame him). The solution is to oppose bad contracts, not to hide your head in the sand and pretend that users (not distributors) have disclaimed warranty.
I don't want to warrant use. Legally, right now, most of us do. This should be fixed.
-russ
The GPL includes a warranty disclaimer. A warranty disclaimer is part of contract law. But the GPL is explicitly not a contract, but is instead a set of copyright permissions. So the warranty disclaimer doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't copy code.
I wonder if Eben has read the GPL. He says "Then anyone can receive a GPL'd program, modify it, and rerelease under a GPL with an Unfeedonian-law-applies clause." How could they do that? You can't modify the GPL. In fact, leaving the jurisdiction unstated allows someone to interpret the GPL under Unfreedonian law. If the GPL specified Massachussetts law, then it would be less uncertain.
But sometimes I wonder if the GPL wasn't devised to enhance uncertainty.
-russ
There are multiple brace styles. There are not multiple indentation styles. It is indentation (which everyone agrees is good) that makes it a pain in the ass when re-formatting huge chunks of code.
-russ
This is a research platform. The camera is as much to look at the user to see what they're doing as anything else. The accelerometer lets the machine know the direction that it's camera is pointed. The Mercury has an *additional* 32MB flash built into it. And the audio interface / headset jack is an acknowledgement that the output-only stereo headset jack on the iPAQ was a mistake. The iPAQ really needs to have an audio jack which can accept either a 1/8" stereo headset, or 1/16" cellphone headset (mono out, mono in) jack. And it's a dual PCMCIA sleeve, not single like the original PCMCIA product.
-russ
Actually, the IRC taxes things besides income. It has this weird idea that it can tax you on the value of stock options you exercised, even if you didn't sell the stock at that value. There was no income (you never had your hands on the cash), but you owe taxes anyway.
-russ
Those of us working on Linux handhelds have known about it since Jamey started designing it. The main problem with putting it into small-scale production is paying Compaq Research for it. They're not set up to take people's money. Plus, it's not FCC certified since it's not a production device.
-russ
If I was going to guard 10.5 tons of gold in Lower Manhattan, I'd put it below sea level with a big pipe coming in from the sea and the valve in an undisclosed location.
-russ
Gene Sharp has been studying the politics of nonviolent action. There's an interview with him. Since you can't coerce someone over a T-1 line, you have to use nonviolent action. I'm a pacifist. Welcome to my world.:-)
-russ
Jefferson wanted "The pursuit of happiness" to read "The pursuit of property". Without the institution of private property, there is no happiness anyway.
-russ
I'm just pointing out that it's not truthful to say "First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software.", because he does exactly that, from time to time.
-russ
First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software.
But when it's convenient to him, he reminds people that "He wrote the Open Source Definition", or that he "co-founded the Open Source Initiative."
-russ
Slashdot Mirror
Re-read it. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that privity -- and contract law -- is not necessary, because copyright law governs copying.
Note how the GPL says "This software is yours to use." That means that no conditions apply. It also means that the disclaimer of warranty (which requires agreement to a contract) does not apply to anyone who merely uses the software and refrains from copying it.
-russ
Yes, the license is still the same. However, it's not a valid contract, and you need a contract to disclaim warranty.
Unless you're GM or GE, you're not going to be able to change the terms of a shrink-wrap license. However, any store that doesn't take back shrink-wrapped software is going to face great pressure from the industry. The validity of the shrink-wrap license is predicated on your ability to refuse it. If, in fact, you have no right, then the license is not a contract, and you're not bound by it.
And that's another thing: jurisdiction. The FSF claims that any license which dictates jurisdiction is not compatible with the GPL, because doing so imposes extra restrictions on the GPL'ed software.
-russ
In a non-UCITA state, you are wrong. Existing law requires that you have a chance to review the license, and accept or reject it. Current software distribution technology does not give you this opportunity. Once you have unpacked the software, it's too late. They're still bound by the license. You now have title to a copy of the software, and the copyright terms (the GPL) does not apply to you.
Those elements absent in the GPL are present in shrink-wrapped software. You are free to reject the terms presented to you and return the software to the store.
In Virginia, a UCITA state, you are allowed to condition a license upon performance. So that once the software has been installed, you may claim that the user should have gone looking for a license, and if they failed to, it's their tough luck. However, UCITA also requires a warranty on all software, so that the GPL terms have no effect.
In Maryland, also a UCITA state, there is a bill on the governor's desk which grants an exemption to open source software for which no license fee is charged. Once that law is signed and goes into effect, the GPL terms will be binding upon users (as opposed to distributors who are bound when they copy the software).
IANAL, but I had dinner with two lawyers (and if you're really well-informed, you can venture a good guess as to who they are) on Wednesday night. If you think hackers use impenetrable jargon, just listen to a pair of lawyers in the middle of a legal hacking session! It's enough to make your head spin.
BTW, it's not the whole GPL that can't be enforced. It's only the waiver of warranty.
Also BTW, try convincing Eben Moglen and/or RMS that the GPL is actually a contract. It isn't. They didn't intend it to be, and it wasn't written in the form of a contract.
-russ
No. There is no opportunity for acceptance or rejection. A contract *must* be accepted by both parties. All that's needed is to put the software inside a tarball, then to put it inside another tarball that contains "README" which offers the use of the software conditioned upon acceptance of the license. If you unpack the inner tarball, you have accepted the license. If you don't accept the license, you don't unpack the tarball. You may, if you wish, have a software agent which accepts the license for you. We can write a standard for the form of the license, so that in practice, you run "license" instead of "tar xfz". And you have pre-configured license with the licenses you will accept automatically.
RMS doesn't like this idea because the contract could specify terms of use, and he is unalterably opposed to any kind of use license (and I don't blame him). The solution is to oppose bad contracts, not to hide your head in the sand and pretend that users (not distributors) have disclaimed warranty.
I don't want to warrant use. Legally, right now, most of us do. This should be fixed.
-russ
Open Root Server Coalition is the only choice, of course!
And people wonder why we haven't adopted alternative roots. As bad as NSI is, conflicting TLD's would be worse.
-russ
Dan Bernstein wonders why power supplies don't come with an internal UPS.
-russ
There's an < missing between x and 10. That's what your C parser is picking up on.
-russ
The GPL includes a warranty disclaimer. A warranty disclaimer is part of contract law. But the GPL is explicitly not a contract, but is instead a set of copyright permissions. So the warranty disclaimer doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't copy code.
The GPL warranty disclaimer can't work.
-russ
I wonder if Eben has read the GPL. He says "Then anyone can receive a GPL'd program, modify it, and rerelease under a GPL with an Unfeedonian-law-applies clause." How could they do that? You can't modify the GPL. In fact, leaving the jurisdiction unstated allows someone to interpret the GPL under Unfreedonian law. If the GPL specified Massachussetts law, then it would be less uncertain.
But sometimes I wonder if the GPL wasn't devised to enhance uncertainty.
-russ
There are multiple brace styles. There are not multiple indentation styles. It is indentation (which everyone agrees is good) that makes it a pain in the ass when re-formatting huge chunks of code.
-russ
I did recognize it. Was quite surprised to see it on various corners in SF.
-russ
This is a research platform. The camera is as much to look at the user to see what they're doing as anything else. The accelerometer lets the machine know the direction that it's camera is pointed. The Mercury has an *additional* 32MB flash built into it. And the audio interface / headset jack is an acknowledgement that the output-only stereo headset jack on the iPAQ was a mistake. The iPAQ really needs to have an audio jack which can accept either a 1/8" stereo headset, or 1/16" cellphone headset (mono out, mono in) jack. And it's a dual PCMCIA sleeve, not single like the original PCMCIA product.
-russ
IRS taxes income,
Actually, the IRC taxes things besides income. It has this weird idea that it can tax you on the value of stock options you exercised, even if you didn't sell the stock at that value. There was no income (you never had your hands on the cash), but you owe taxes anyway.
-russ
Here.
-russ
The Compaq iPAQ has 32M RAM and 16M flash. It's a real computer. The Agenda device is just a PDA that happens to run Linux.
-russ
Handhelds.org has a WIKI. Search it for "stroke" or "scrib" and you'll find multiple handwriting recognition apps.
-russ
Those of us working on Linux handhelds have known about it since Jamey started designing it. The main problem with putting it into small-scale production is paying Compaq Research for it. They're not set up to take people's money. Plus, it's not FCC certified since it's not a production device.
-russ
If I was going to guard 10.5 tons of gold in Lower Manhattan, I'd put it below sea level with a big pipe coming in from the sea and the valve in an undisclosed location.
-russ
Are you going to kick the bucket now?
-russ
Gene Sharp has been studying the politics of nonviolent action. There's an interview with him. Since you can't coerce someone over a T-1 line, you have to use nonviolent action. I'm a pacifist. Welcome to my world. :-)
-russ
Jefferson wanted "The pursuit of happiness" to read "The pursuit of property". Without the institution of private property, there is no happiness anyway.
-russ
For $900 I'd be happy to sell you the developer version of the Linux iPAQ.
-russ
I'm just pointing out that it's not truthful to say "First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software.", because he does exactly that, from time to time.
-russ
First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software.
But when it's convenient to him, he reminds people that "He wrote the Open Source Definition", or that he "co-founded the Open Source Initiative."
-russ
This is the oldest file on my web site.
-rw-r--r-- 1 nelson root 35867 Jul 31 1994 packet_driver.html