It specifically talks of the granting of rights from the code holder to the code reciever.
"sole proprietors of all rights" could be translated to "sole owner of all rights". The GPL does not transfer ownership of rights, it is a specific license which grants specific rights of use. In the legal sense, the "rights" referred to are completely different. "sole proprietors of all rights" refers to the persons who are able to confer rights of usage on others. The GPL most definately does not grant that proprietorship of rights. The copyright holder is the sole owner of all rights and is able to do what he/she wishes with those rights. Including not granting them to anyone. BUT, the GPL stipulates specifically when the rights granted under the license can be changed or revoked by the copyright owner, which amounts to never. The only option that the copyright holder has is to release the code under a different license (or not at all) which does not nullify the license granted to current holders of the GPLed software.
This is the crux of Mattel's problem, and why their lawyers should be fired. Mattel can certainly refuse to never again grant anyone permission to use CPHack, but the current users can not be forced to stop, except by other means. The previous owners of the copyright didn't give proprietorship of any rights to anyone. They simply distributed under a license which granted usage of rights, not proprietorship of rights.
That's probably very confusing but the best I can explain. I'm really pretty certain about this. Being a software developer I make it my business to know about copyright and licensing laws, they affect me on a daily basis.
. I think you're entirely wrong about the restrictions placed on a proprietary copyright holder's ability to revoke.
But the ability to arbitrarily revoke (read "change") the license means that licenses are useless to the end user. While one purpose of licenses are to protect the rights of IP owners, another is essentially a guarantee that once you (the end user) agree to a license, you are assured the rights granted under that license until some clause explicitly stated in the license kicks in. This does not put restrictions on future licenses you may grant(a very important point!). But any software distributed under a license is under that license forever unless specific terms of the license say otherwise. Nothing else really makes sense, as far as I can see.
Now this is where my understanding gets muddy, but I believe the rights can be revoked if you do something which doesn not comply with the license. For example:
I download Emacs, with the source code. I use it. I have specific rights granted under the GPL, including the right to use it. I make source modifications and continue to use it. I do not however redistribute the changes, in binary or source form. Under the GPL, this is fine. I then decide to release my changed binary, refusing to release the changed source.
It is my understanding that in this case, my rights under the GPL are immediately revoked. Right? In other words, the rights granted under GPL can be revoked, but only if you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL.
BTW. Thanks for the "fewer" correction. I wan't paying attention and I hate things like that too.
Absolutely not. Mattel, as copyright holder, has the right to change the license to whatever they see fit. But they cannot revoke existing licenses. In other words, Mattel can do whatever they want with the software now. They cannot, however, nullify the permissions granted to people who downloaded the software under the GPL.
It is possible for a software company to revoke licenses. This isn't typically done, because the license also usually contains a contractual term in which the copyright owner contracts not to do what your example postulates, but licences can be and often are revoked in other fields (check out your "license" to perform a play if Andrew Lloyd-Webber wants to do the same play in your town)
The terms of revocation must be spelled out in the license itself. In this sense, the GPL is exactly like any other license. The terms of revocation are spelled out in the GPL. There are just less instances where the license can be revoked.
In general, licenses are not assignments of rights because they don't confer rights, because they are revocable. Commercial software licenses are generally revocable, and contain clauses detailing what is to happen in the event that (for example) Microsoft decides that it no longer wants to license Windows to you under the EULA.
No, Microsoft cannot arbitrarily decide to revoke the license. All terms of revokation must be explicitly spelled out in the license. Think of the chaos that would result if this were otherwise. Licenses would mean absolutely nothing because the licenser could pull the rug out from under you at any time they choose.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the GPL is not as other licenses. In general, licenses are not assignments of rights because they don't confer rights, because they are revocable.
On the contrary. The GPL is exactly like any other license in the area that matters. The contents of the license don't matter. It is still a contract granting permission to use the copyrighted work under certain terms. If the terms are not met, the license is revoked. It is definately not an assignment of copyright, which grants many more rights than the GPL.
And I suppose I should add that I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on TV.:)
It is not moronic. A couple quotes: 1. From the article: The agreement also states that Jansson and Skala attest they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else.
2. From Findlaw: : a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights
The short of an assignment of all rights is VERY important here. Without seeing the contract, you can't see the exact wording, But my interpretation of their paraphrasing is that they are refering to the assignment of ALL rights which, to put it another way, is an assignment of copyright. Plus, a real lawyer seems to agree with me
I disagree. Here's a comment from the only (apparent) lawyer to post here(Hawk):
generally, a licensing is not an assignment of rights--especially since the license was exclusive. While licensing, the authors could continue issue under another license (proprietary, perhaps). They can't do this after they assign their rights, which are what had previously let them license.
I, of course, haven't seen the contract, but the rights generally refered to in the context implied by the article are ownership rights. In other words, the rights to license the software to others. The GPL, in fact, prohibits the licensing of the software by a third party, it simply requires the propagation of the existing license. Mattel would be hard pressed to argue otherwise in front of a judge. The might have a considerably easier time finding an arguement to fire their lawyers.
They didn't extend the rights, they licensed the use. It's a very important distinction and one that has just screwed Mattel. The GPL maintains the original authors rights over the software. In fact, the original author may remove the GPL from future versions, but they can't take away the license already granted.
, the copyright has not been publicly licensed, only the license to redistribute and/or modify the code.
That's my take as well, but to be pedantic, you assign copyrights, not license them. Having a copyright assigned to you gives you the right to license a piece of software for whatever you want. However, it does not give one the right to change the license on previously released works. (Otherwise we'd always be in danger of software companys saying, "Oops! We've just changed the license on Windows 98. Please pay us $50 more dollars to continue using it legally!")
They didn't assign the rights, they licenced the use. The GPL is not an assignment of copy-rights, it's a license granting permission to do something that one normally couldn't do. Mattel can certanly prohibit the release of all future versions of CPHack written by Mattel, but they are SOL as far as what's currently out there.
I'd definitely consider the Pacific NW (Vancouver, WA, OR, been to all and enjoyed them a lot)
I'm in Seattle. I assume you mean Vancouver BC, which is a cool place. There's a town in WA, right across the border from Portland, called Vancouver. It's kind of a shithole.
I would recommend against Seattle. It gets on your nerves and wears you down. Traffic sucks. Costs are outrageous due to the abundance of dot coms and MS millionaires. People here are so apathetic it isn't even funny. And everyone drives an SUV and bitches about how much gas costs. I'm only here because my girlfriend is finishing up her Classics degree at UW.
Portland, OR on the other hand, is a wonderful city. I'd move there in a second. If you are going to move to the Pacific Northwest, that is the place to be. Just watch out for a scary man named Lon Mabon.
Seattle has had some billboard terrorists. My favorate was a billboard for Merit cigarettes. It shows a person excitedly holding up a pack of Merits with the slogan. "I've got Merit". Well, they changed the slogan to read "I've got Cancer!".
This reminds me of something here in Fremont (A district in Seattle.) A couple years ago, Adobe built a nice shiny new building here which blocks the view of the water. A while ago, Someone went around and stuck stickers all over the area that say "Fuck Adobe". The best part is the irony. They used a distinctive Adobe font for the stickers.
In that case, Windows NT is *nix. It has a POSIX compliant subsystem. (MS had to write a POSIX subsystem in order to comply with arcane govt. software purchasing guidelines)
Oh, BTW (please don't think I'm defending Reagan, see my sig)
Reagan didn't pass that law. ATC's are federal employees. When you get hired as a federal employee you must swear a bunch of things, including not commiting treason and not striking. As far as I remember, those laws were in place before Reagan. The ATCs were fired because it was literally illegal for them to strike. Still is, though IIRC Clinton pardoned the original ATCs.
I'm not saying he should enforce it at all, but the fact that he is so open in his ideas of selective enforcement suggests to me ulterior motives.
Of course there are ulterior motives. You seem to imply that a patent is an end in and of itself. Patents are a tool. No one gets a patent just to say, "look at me! I got a patent!"
As tools, they can be used for good things, bad things, or nothing at all. Jeff was spelling out his intent for the patent. So the "point" of the patent is to "[go] after the big guys who are going after us". Whether that is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
This is completely offtopic, but, you know what? I actually cried when I heard the news. 41 times. An unarmed black man was shot fourty-one times. I feel sick to the stomach when I think of the fact that the police can basically unload their weapons on an unarmed man and be found innocent.
so to comply with it he either remove this license/agreement or forbid anybody to download it.
Hmmm, let me play devil's advocate for a second here. What if he were to put a message up forbidding anyone from downloading the software. Would that then shift liability away from him, toward the downloader? My layman's interpretation is that he could be busted for software piracy by the original copyright holder in this case. That means that it is actually possible to pirate GPL'ed software. Wow.
Slashdot Mirror
It specifically talks of the granting of rights from the code holder to the code reciever.
"sole proprietors of all rights" could be translated to "sole owner of all rights". The GPL does not transfer ownership of rights, it is a specific license which grants specific rights of use. In the legal sense, the "rights" referred to are completely different. "sole proprietors of all rights" refers to the persons who are able to confer rights of usage on others. The GPL most definately does not grant that proprietorship of rights. The copyright holder is the sole owner of all rights and is able to do what he/she wishes with those rights. Including not granting them to anyone. BUT, the GPL stipulates specifically when the rights granted under the license can be changed or revoked by the copyright owner, which amounts to never. The only option that the copyright holder has is to release the code under a different license (or not at all) which does not nullify the license granted to current holders of the GPLed software.
This is the crux of Mattel's problem, and why their lawyers should be fired. Mattel can certainly refuse to never again grant anyone permission to use CPHack, but the current users can not be forced to stop, except by other means. The previous owners of the copyright didn't give proprietorship of any rights to anyone. They simply distributed under a license which granted usage of rights, not proprietorship of rights.
That's probably very confusing but the best I can explain. I'm really pretty certain about this. Being a software developer I make it my business to know about copyright and licensing laws, they affect me on a daily basis.
--GnrcMan--
. I think you're entirely wrong about the restrictions placed on a proprietary copyright holder's ability to revoke.
But the ability to arbitrarily revoke (read "change") the license means that licenses are useless to the end user. While one purpose of licenses are to protect the rights of IP owners, another is essentially a guarantee that once you (the end user) agree to a license, you are assured the rights granted under that license until some clause explicitly stated in the license kicks in. This does not put restrictions on future licenses you may grant(a very important point!). But any software distributed under a license is under that license forever unless specific terms of the license say otherwise. Nothing else really makes sense, as far as I can see.
--GnrcMan--
Now this is where my understanding gets muddy, but I believe the rights can be revoked if you do something which doesn not comply with the license. For example:
I download Emacs, with the source code. I use it. I have specific rights granted under the GPL, including the right to use it. I make source modifications and continue to use it. I do not however redistribute the changes, in binary or source form. Under the GPL, this is fine. I then decide to release my changed binary, refusing to release the changed source.
It is my understanding that in this case, my rights under the GPL are immediately revoked. Right? In other words, the rights granted under GPL can be revoked, but only if you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL.
BTW. Thanks for the "fewer" correction. I wan't paying attention and I hate things like that too.
--GnrcMan--
Thank you. That was stated much better than I could have, and covers most of the counterpoints I've seen on this topic.
--GnrcMan--
Absolutely not. Mattel, as copyright holder, has the right to change the license to whatever they see fit. But they cannot revoke existing licenses. In other words, Mattel can do whatever they want with the software now. They cannot, however, nullify the permissions granted to people who downloaded the software under the GPL.
--GnrcMan--
It is possible for a software company to revoke licenses. This isn't typically done, because the license also usually contains a contractual term in which the copyright owner contracts not to do what your example postulates, but licences can be and often are revoked in other fields (check out your "license" to perform a play if Andrew Lloyd-Webber wants to do the same play in your town)
The terms of revocation must be spelled out in the license itself. In this sense, the GPL is exactly like any other license. The terms of revocation are spelled out in the GPL. There are just less instances where the license can be revoked.
--GnrcMan--
In general, licenses are not assignments of rights because they don't confer rights, because they are revocable. Commercial software licenses are generally revocable, and contain clauses detailing what is to happen in the event that (for example) Microsoft decides that it no longer wants to license Windows to you under the EULA.
:)
No, Microsoft cannot arbitrarily decide to revoke the license. All terms of revokation must be explicitly spelled out in the license. Think of the chaos that would result if this were otherwise. Licenses would mean absolutely nothing because the licenser could pull the rug out from under you at any time they choose.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the GPL is not as other licenses. In general, licenses are not assignments of rights because they don't confer rights, because they are revocable.
On the contrary. The GPL is exactly like any other license in the area that matters. The contents of the license don't matter. It is still a contract granting permission to use the copyrighted work under certain terms. If the terms are not met, the license is revoked. It is definately not an assignment of copyright, which grants many more rights than the GPL.
And I suppose I should add that I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on TV.
--GnrcMan--
This is law, not math, you dink.
--GnrcMan--
It is not moronic. A couple quotes:
1. From the article:
The agreement also states that Jansson and Skala attest they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else.
2. From Findlaw:
: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights
The short of an assignment of all rights is VERY important here. Without seeing the contract, you can't see the exact wording, But my interpretation of their paraphrasing is that they are refering to the assignment of ALL rights which, to put it another way, is an assignment of copyright. Plus, a real lawyer seems to agree with me
--GnrcMan--
I disagree. Here's a comment from the only (apparent) lawyer to post here(Hawk):
generally, a licensing is not an assignment of rights--especially since the license was exclusive. While licensing, the authors could continue issue under another license (proprietary, perhaps). They can't do this after they assign their rights, which are what had previously let them license.
Which is exactly my take on the matter.
--GnrcMan--
I, of course, haven't seen the contract, but the rights generally refered to in the context implied by the article are ownership rights. In other words, the rights to license the software to others. The GPL, in fact, prohibits the licensing of the software by a third party, it simply requires the propagation of the existing license. Mattel would be hard pressed to argue otherwise in front of a judge. The might have a considerably easier time finding an arguement to fire their lawyers.
--GnrcMan--
They didn't extend the rights, they licensed the use. It's a very important distinction and one that has just screwed Mattel. The GPL maintains the original authors rights over the software. In fact, the original author may remove the GPL from future versions, but they can't take away the license already granted.
--GnrcMan--
I just spelled "license" wrong in that entire comment. Sorry.
--GnrcMan--
, the copyright has not been publicly licensed, only the license to redistribute and/or modify the code.
That's my take as well, but to be pedantic, you assign copyrights, not license them. Having a copyright assigned to you gives you the right to license a piece of software for whatever you want. However, it does not give one the right to change the license on previously released works. (Otherwise we'd always be in danger of software companys saying, "Oops! We've just changed the license on Windows 98. Please pay us $50 more dollars to continue using it legally!")
--GnrcMan--
They didn't assign the rights, they licenced the use. The GPL is not an assignment of copy-rights, it's a license granting permission to do something that one normally couldn't do. Mattel can certanly prohibit the release of all future versions of CPHack written by Mattel, but they are SOL as far as what's currently out there.
--GnrcMan--
I'd definitely consider the Pacific NW (Vancouver, WA, OR, been to all and enjoyed them a lot)
I'm in Seattle. I assume you mean Vancouver BC, which is a cool place. There's a town in WA, right across the border from Portland, called Vancouver. It's kind of a shithole.
I would recommend against Seattle. It gets on your nerves and wears you down. Traffic sucks. Costs are outrageous due to the abundance of dot coms and MS millionaires. People here are so apathetic it isn't even funny. And everyone drives an SUV and bitches about how much gas costs. I'm only here because my girlfriend is finishing up her Classics degree at UW.
Portland, OR on the other hand, is a wonderful city. I'd move there in a second. If you are going to move to the Pacific Northwest, that is the place to be. Just watch out for a scary man named Lon Mabon.
--GnrcMan--
Seattle has had some billboard terrorists. My favorate was a billboard for Merit cigarettes. It shows a person excitedly holding up a pack of Merits with the slogan. "I've got Merit". Well, they changed the slogan to read "I've got Cancer!".
--GnrcMan--
This reminds me of something here in Fremont (A district in Seattle.) A couple years ago, Adobe built a nice shiny new building here which blocks the view of the water. A while ago, Someone went around and stuck stickers all over the area that say "Fuck Adobe". The best part is the irony. They used a distinctive Adobe font for the stickers.
--GnrcMan--
In that case, Windows NT is *nix. It has a POSIX compliant subsystem. (MS had to write a POSIX subsystem in order to comply with arcane govt. software purchasing guidelines)
--GnrcMan--
My thoughts exactly. :)
--GnrcMan--
Oh, BTW (please don't think I'm defending Reagan, see my sig)
Reagan didn't pass that law. ATC's are federal employees. When you get hired as a federal employee you must swear a bunch of things, including not commiting treason and not striking. As far as I remember, those laws were in place before Reagan. The ATCs were fired because it was literally illegal for them to strike. Still is, though IIRC Clinton pardoned the original ATCs.
--GnrcMan--
The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers. They are the ones that fought against Microsofts "temp" worker practices. (Admitedly, the end result has sucked for both MS and the workers, but none the less, a union).
--GnrcMan--
I'm not saying he should enforce it at all, but the fact that he is so open in his ideas of selective enforcement suggests to me ulterior motives.
Of course there are ulterior motives. You seem to imply that a patent is an end in and of itself. Patents are a tool. No one gets a patent just to say, "look at me! I got a patent!"
As tools, they can be used for good things, bad things, or nothing at all. Jeff was spelling out his intent for the patent. So the "point" of the patent is to "[go] after the big guys who are going after us". Whether that is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
--GnrcMan--
This is completely offtopic, but, you know what? I actually cried when I heard the news. 41 times. An unarmed black man was shot fourty-one times. I feel sick to the stomach when I think of the fact that the police can basically unload their weapons on an unarmed man and be found innocent.
Just wanted to get that off my chest.
Casey
--GnrcMan--
so to comply with it he either remove this license/agreement or forbid anybody to download it.
Hmmm, let me play devil's advocate for a second here. What if he were to put a message up forbidding anyone from downloading the software. Would that then shift liability away from him, toward the downloader?
My layman's interpretation is that he could be busted for software piracy by the original copyright holder in this case. That means that it is actually possible to pirate GPL'ed software. Wow.
--GnrcMan--