If you actually read the GPL, the terms for copying and modification only apply if you distribute, therefore the parent poster is correct and you are not.
If the terms of the GPL do not apply, then you have no permission whatsoever.
In any case, the terms for distribution are only one section. There are at least two others.
So then the license contradicts itself. Wouldn't the later provision override the previous one?
That is, assuming the court doesn't decide to interpret the seeming contradiction to mean that running the program is not restricted, but installing or loading it into memory is.
They simply assert that you must agree to the license in order to use the software.
And the GPL asserts that you must agree to the license in order to distribute or modify the software.
Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.
Actually, they don't. Those terms, as applied to copyright law (which is what we are talking about, since we're talking GPL) have consistantly been found to not include the act of installation or running.
This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that: "the loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit ("CPU") causes a copy to be made. In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright infringement." We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and by the law.
Either 1) you're selling copies of the software that were purchased from someone else. In this case, you're simply selling things without modifying them, which you could do with GPL software anyway.
Where does the GPL allow you to sell binaries without modifying them and without including the source code (or a written offer of the source code)?
For instance the right to resell binaries without reselling the source.
This is not a right you normally have under copyright law, so that's a bad example.
Yes it is. "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
You're acting like there is no distinction between End User and Distributor, turning End User into a meaningless synonym for "human".
No I'm not. You're confusing me.
Those actions prohibited by copyright law are not the purvey of the End User.
Modification and copying are things that end users do all the time. What good is the source code if you can't modify or copy it?
Because according to MS, agreeing to the MS EULA is required prior to using the software.
So if according to me, agreeing to the GPL is required prior to using my software, that makes it true?
In contrast, it is not required that you agree to the GPL before using the software
According to whom?
I mean, how can you even claim that it becomes a EULA when the supposed "EULA" states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.
No, an EULA is an attempt to force the user to "sign" an additional "contract" before installing the software.
Which is exactly what the GPL does implicitly by stating that "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so." I'd like to see you install something without modifying it. The GPL also does this explicitly when it is set up in a way which forces you to click "I agree" in order to install it.
This contract attempts to make the user waive rights he would otherwise have under copyright law
For instance the right to resell binaries without reselling the source.
Copyright law does not deal with such restrictions on the use of software, only with making additional copies of the software
Using software involves copying, so copyright law most certainly does deal with use.
No it doesn't, because the GPL makes no restrictions on the End User, so it is not an End User License Agreement.
Sure it does. It tells the End User how that End User is allowed to copy or modify the software.
It explicitely states that you do not have to agree to its terms in order to use the software, so the installer dialog box is irrelevant.
No, here's what it states:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The word "use" is not even used.
The GPL dictates terms only for those who want to become distributors.
The GPL dictates terms for anyone who copies, modifies, or distributes works.
Note that with standard copyright law and standard EULAs, you can not become a distributor at all.
I know people who are Microsoft software distributors and have gotten no license from Microsoft. Are you saying these people are breaking the law?
If you - as a distributor - do not agree to the GPL, then your rights revert to standard copyright, which says you just can't distrubute the program.
No, copyright law says you can't copy, modify, distribute, lend, or circumvent.
You can still use it, though (fair use allows you to make the copy in to main memory so it will run).
Yes, it does (well, actually it's not fair use which allows it, but close enough). And that argument applies just as much to the Microsoft EULA as it does to the GPL.
Because the GPL is only concerned with distributing it to a third party.
That's not what the GPL says.
There is no way a book publisher could get away with attaching a per reader fee, together with a per listener fee, to a book. But try the same thing with software suddenly judges and legislators think the argument makes some sort of sense.
Books are different from software. Go figure.
Effectivly an EULA is an attempt by one legal entity to regulate the internal opertations of another legal entity.
It seems to me that by forcing the user to accept the GPL you are removing the right of the user not to accept the GPL.
No, they still have the right to not accept the GPL, but then they can't run the software.
What you're saying is like saying that by writing software which won't print unless you hit the print button you're removing the right of the user not to hit print. It's just how the software works, in order to run it, you have to click "I agree."
You already have a fair use right to make copies of software in order to run that software
You have a fair use right to use Microsoft software on a computer with more than 2 processors, too. I thought we were talking about the rights that the licence purports to take away, not the ones it actually does take away.
If you don't agree to the GPL, you can continue to run it under fair use.
What if you've been forced to click "I agree" to the GPL? What about the fact that the GPL says that "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it." By installing a program, you modify it. And according the GPL, that indicates acceptance. Sounds an awful lot like an EULA to me.
RMS himself has regularly made the point, and he'd know better than anyone else.
RMS isn't a copyright lawyer, so no, he wouldn't know better than anyone else. The people who would know better than anyone else are the members of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, I've come across a lot of installers since moving to Mac OS X written by people who apparently don't "get" the licence they've adopted and force users to agree to the GPL as an EULA. Annoying, but as the GPL doesn't remove any rights, I don't see it as a problem in any sense except politically.
The GPL does remove rights, if you agree to it. It forbids you from distributing binaries without distributing source code. That's something that I do all the time with Microsoft software, by reselling it.
I'm just curious, but what would be the point of reverse-engineering GPL binaries?
For educational purposes, of course.
And anyway, if you really wanted to reverse-engineer a GPLed binary, you could just compile from source and reverse-engineer what comes out of your compiler.
Even if simply running software did count as modify/copy (which I doubt)
It does, though you are automatically granted a license to do it under copyright law.
the restriction is that you make available the source just as the binaries.
Actually you also have to "carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." And you don't just have to make source available, you have to accompany the binaries with the source, or a written offer to provide the source. Hope you're not making install CDs which don't contain the source code...
So you can modify GPL software to your heart's delight in-house and never release the changes you made, just as long as you don't release the binaries either.
Not quite to your heart's delight. You can't remove the copyright notice. See this dispute, for instance.
Because you're not violating anything if you get around having to click on that?
Why not? What are you violating if you get around having to click "I agree" for a Microsoft EULA that you're not violating by getting around having to click "I agree" for the GPL? It seems that all the arguments (like the DMCA) would apply equally to both licenses. And don't forget that the GPL makes it illegal to remove the copyright and warranty notice, which is all an EULA really is.
Treating the GPL like an EULA doesn't make it an EULA.:)
Applying the GPL as an EULA does make it an EULA. The GPL is an agreement. As such it can be used in multiple different ways.
BTW, what apps were these?
I honestly don't remember, but I've seen it more than once.
The GPL is "1) Do what you want with it, 2) as long as derivative works are GPL as well (see 1)".
I wish the GPL was just that. It has many other restrictions though. Like you have to distribute the source when you distribute the binary. And you have to "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." And you can't remove the copyright notice. And you can't reverse engineer binaries (due to the DMCA).
It's more like someone has an endless supply of self-replicating cars and is giving them away to anyone who will agree not to lock theirs up in a garage, and let anyone who asks get a copy of their car.
Actually, the GPL doesn't have anything to do with giving things away. Most people who use the GPL do give things away, but it's not a requirement.
Hmm, this illustrates the problems with equating software with material objects!
True, but my basic point holds. Some people need more control than others. The GPL is nice for people who want to make copies, but for those who don't the Windows XP license is usually just as good.
Some people lease cars. Others rent. Others buy. Each comes with a different cost, a different value, and a different set of restrictions. GPLed software is closer to leasing. Microsoft software is more like renting. Public domain is like buying.
I'm happy with six inches on each side in New York, the real problem is getting out of the spot when you have 2 inches in front and the car behind you is sitting on your bumper.
I once literally had both cars touching my car. Somehow I still managed to get out. Probably had something to do with the fact that neither car was there when I parked there, so I had no moral problems with the bump bump method.
Personally, I think if you can't park anywhere, at anytime, then you shouldn't be driving.
Then we wouldn't exactly have any drivers now would we? One of the first things you learn when parking in the real world is just how much pressure you can put on a car before there's damage. They don't teach that in drivers' ed.
It doesn't make sense to incorporate until you're making money (unless your clients require it). And at that point you can afford an office, either a real one or one of those shared deals in Delaware.
As for zoning, the IRS has nothing to do with zoning.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a copy of Red Hat Linux, you can sell that copy of Red Hat Linux however you like.
Not if you agreed to the GPL, which says that you can only distribute binaries with source.
It says you can't distribute copies by any method, which would of course include lending.
When have you ever received the original software? All you ever get is copies.
The law doesn't say that you can't distributes copies which you have made yourself. It says you can't distribute copies.
If you actually read the GPL, the terms for copying and modification only apply if you distribute, therefore the parent poster is correct and you are not.
If the terms of the GPL do not apply, then you have no permission whatsoever.
In any case, the terms for distribution are only one section. There are at least two others.
So then the license contradicts itself. Wouldn't the later provision override the previous one?
That is, assuming the court doesn't decide to interpret the seeming contradiction to mean that running the program is not restricted, but installing or loading it into memory is.
They simply assert that you must agree to the license in order to use the software.
And the GPL asserts that you must agree to the license in order to distribute or modify the software.
Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.
Actually, they don't. Those terms, as applied to copyright law (which is what we are talking about, since we're talking GPL) have consistantly been found to not include the act of installation or running.
Look at MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
Considering that a vaccine is actually a weakened version of a virus, that's actually a pretty good analogy.
By installing a program, you modify it.
No you don't.
Yes you do :).
Either 1) you're selling copies of the software that were purchased from someone else. In this case, you're simply selling things without modifying them, which you could do with GPL software anyway.
Where does the GPL allow you to sell binaries without modifying them and without including the source code (or a written offer of the source code)?
For instance the right to resell binaries without reselling the source.
This is not a right you normally have under copyright law, so that's a bad example.
Yes it is. "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
You're acting like there is no distinction between End User and Distributor, turning End User into a meaningless synonym for "human".
No I'm not. You're confusing me.
Those actions prohibited by copyright law are not the purvey of the End User.
Modification and copying are things that end users do all the time. What good is the source code if you can't modify or copy it?
Copyright law does not say you cannot lend.
Bzzt.
Because according to MS, agreeing to the MS EULA is required prior to using the software.
So if according to me, agreeing to the GPL is required prior to using my software, that makes it true?
In contrast, it is not required that you agree to the GPL before using the software
According to whom?
I mean, how can you even claim that it becomes a EULA when the supposed "EULA" states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.
No, an EULA is an attempt to force the user to "sign" an additional "contract" before installing the software.
Which is exactly what the GPL does implicitly by stating that "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so." I'd like to see you install something without modifying it. The GPL also does this explicitly when it is set up in a way which forces you to click "I agree" in order to install it.
This contract attempts to make the user waive rights he would otherwise have under copyright law
For instance the right to resell binaries without reselling the source.
Copyright law does not deal with such restrictions on the use of software, only with making additional copies of the software
Using software involves copying, so copyright law most certainly does deal with use.
No it doesn't, because the GPL makes no restrictions on the End User, so it is not an End User License Agreement.
Sure it does. It tells the End User how that End User is allowed to copy or modify the software.
It explicitely states that you do not have to agree to its terms in order to use the software, so the installer dialog box is irrelevant.
No, here's what it states:
The word "use" is not even used.
The GPL dictates terms only for those who want to become distributors.
The GPL dictates terms for anyone who copies, modifies, or distributes works.
Note that with standard copyright law and standard EULAs, you can not become a distributor at all.
I know people who are Microsoft software distributors and have gotten no license from Microsoft. Are you saying these people are breaking the law?
If you - as a distributor - do not agree to the GPL, then your rights revert to standard copyright, which says you just can't distrubute the program.
No, copyright law says you can't copy, modify, distribute, lend, or circumvent.
You can still use it, though (fair use allows you to make the copy in to main memory so it will run).
Yes, it does (well, actually it's not fair use which allows it, but close enough). And that argument applies just as much to the Microsoft EULA as it does to the GPL.
Because the GPL is only concerned with distributing it to a third party.
That's not what the GPL says.
There is no way a book publisher could get away with attaching a per reader fee, together with a per listener fee, to a book. But try the same thing with software suddenly judges and legislators think the argument makes some sort of sense.
Books are different from software. Go figure.
Effectivly an EULA is an attempt by one legal entity to regulate the internal opertations of another legal entity.
Interesting definition.
It seems to me that by forcing the user to accept the GPL you are removing the right of the user not to accept the GPL.
No, they still have the right to not accept the GPL, but then they can't run the software.
What you're saying is like saying that by writing software which won't print unless you hit the print button you're removing the right of the user not to hit print. It's just how the software works, in order to run it, you have to click "I agree."
You already have a fair use right to make copies of software in order to run that software
You have a fair use right to use Microsoft software on a computer with more than 2 processors, too. I thought we were talking about the rights that the licence purports to take away, not the ones it actually does take away.
If you don't agree to the GPL, you can continue to run it under fair use.
What if you've been forced to click "I agree" to the GPL? What about the fact that the GPL says that "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it." By installing a program, you modify it. And according the GPL, that indicates acceptance. Sounds an awful lot like an EULA to me.
RMS himself has regularly made the point, and he'd know better than anyone else.
RMS isn't a copyright lawyer, so no, he wouldn't know better than anyone else. The people who would know better than anyone else are the members of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, I've come across a lot of installers since moving to Mac OS X written by people who apparently don't "get" the licence they've adopted and force users to agree to the GPL as an EULA. Annoying, but as the GPL doesn't remove any rights, I don't see it as a problem in any sense except politically.
The GPL does remove rights, if you agree to it. It forbids you from distributing binaries without distributing source code. That's something that I do all the time with Microsoft software, by reselling it.
I'm just curious, but what would be the point of reverse-engineering GPL binaries?
For educational purposes, of course.
And anyway, if you really wanted to reverse-engineer a GPLed binary, you could just compile from source and reverse-engineer what comes out of your compiler.
Only if you used the exact same compiler options.
Even if simply running software did count as modify/copy (which I doubt)
It does, though you are automatically granted a license to do it under copyright law.
the restriction is that you make available the source just as the binaries.
Actually you also have to "carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." And you don't just have to make source available, you have to accompany the binaries with the source, or a written offer to provide the source. Hope you're not making install CDs which don't contain the source code...
So you can modify GPL software to your heart's delight in-house and never release the changes you made, just as long as you don't release the binaries either.
Not quite to your heart's delight. You can't remove the copyright notice. See this dispute, for instance.
Because you're not violating anything if you get around having to click on that?
Why not? What are you violating if you get around having to click "I agree" for a Microsoft EULA that you're not violating by getting around having to click "I agree" for the GPL? It seems that all the arguments (like the DMCA) would apply equally to both licenses. And don't forget that the GPL makes it illegal to remove the copyright and warranty notice, which is all an EULA really is.
Treating the GPL like an EULA doesn't make it an EULA. :)
Applying the GPL as an EULA does make it an EULA. The GPL is an agreement. As such it can be used in multiple different ways.
BTW, what apps were these?
I honestly don't remember, but I've seen it more than once.
The GPL is "1) Do what you want with it, 2) as long as derivative works are GPL as well (see 1)".
I wish the GPL was just that. It has many other restrictions though. Like you have to distribute the source when you distribute the binary. And you have to "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." And you can't remove the copyright notice. And you can't reverse engineer binaries (due to the DMCA).
The GPL says "do what you want - BUT if you decide to distribute it, you must follow these rules...."
No, it says if you modify, copy, or distribute it you must follow these rules. I'd like to see you run software without modifying or copying it.
The GPL is not an EULA
I've used many pieces of software which wouldn't allow me to use them without clicking "I Agree" to the GPL. How is that not an EULA?
It's more like someone has an endless supply of self-replicating cars and is giving them away to anyone who will agree not to lock theirs up in a garage, and let anyone who asks get a copy of their car.
Actually, the GPL doesn't have anything to do with giving things away. Most people who use the GPL do give things away, but it's not a requirement.
Hmm, this illustrates the problems with equating software with material objects!
True, but my basic point holds. Some people need more control than others. The GPL is nice for people who want to make copies, but for those who don't the Windows XP license is usually just as good.
Some people lease cars. Others rent. Others buy. Each comes with a different cost, a different value, and a different set of restrictions. GPLed software is closer to leasing. Microsoft software is more like renting. Public domain is like buying.
I'm happy with six inches on each side in New York, the real problem is getting out of the spot when you have 2 inches in front and the car behind you is sitting on your bumper.
I once literally had both cars touching my car. Somehow I still managed to get out. Probably had something to do with the fact that neither car was there when I parked there, so I had no moral problems with the bump bump method.
Personally, I think if you can't park anywhere, at anytime, then you shouldn't be driving.
Then we wouldn't exactly have any drivers now would we? One of the first things you learn when parking in the real world is just how much pressure you can put on a car before there's damage. They don't teach that in drivers' ed.
It doesn't make sense to incorporate until you're making money (unless your clients require it). And at that point you can afford an office, either a real one or one of those shared deals in Delaware.
As for zoning, the IRS has nothing to do with zoning.
If the poster had heard about the nifty invention used to harness power from light, if he would have suggested the solar powered flashlight.
Aside from the obvious, imagine the ultimate flashlight - one that charges the battery every time you turn it on. How cool is that?
Sun time is based on the sun, not cesium atoms. It's self-adjusting.