Your examples are bad. If you pay someone else to make copies, that's inducing infringement. If you have the right to make copies and make them yourself, that's perfectly legal.
You're missing cases where B has a natural incentive to not distribute the source. The example that brought this up in another Slashdot news story was the case of a cable TV operator that was distributing receivers with GPL'd software on them. If they bought those receivers from someone else, they have no obligation to distribute the source, and if they got the source with the receivers, they have no motivation to distribute the source themselves. Ergo, the people with the receivers can't get the source, because neither party is obligated to give it to them, and neither party wants to give it to them.
An average person, with modest needs and simple aspirations, who is willing to do the work they are being paid to do, does not deserve to be mistreated.
They also just took $30 million out of the consumer buying pool.
No they didn't. They stopped spending $30 million a year on Circuit City sales people. Now that $30 million will get spent on something else.
It is not good for the economy to just keep people employed. Quality of life only improves when people are employed doing something useful. Hell, in an ideal world, machines would do all the work and we'd just sit on our asses all day.
I know you didn't major in Economics! The $30 million they "save" on wages will quickly have a major impact on lost sales and other losses.
You apparently didn't major in economics either. The question is, "Does paying these people $30 million per year make us more than $30 million per year?" and if the answer is no, then you should fire them. Even if you're going to lose $10 million a year because of it. Or even if you're going to lose $20 million.
Now, maybe they'll lose more than $30 million. We don't know. That's a decision of Circuit City's management. If they're going to lose more than $30 million because of it, guess where that loss comes from? That's right, the company. But just because there will be some losses from firing the employees does not mean that firing the employees is not the right decision.
I realize that it does indeed violate their copyright, but as a student, wouldn't you want your paper in their catalog so that some lazy student can't make it through school by plagiarizing YOUR work?
I guess that would depend mainly on how much you were able to sell your paper for.
If your company sucks, leave it and go work somewhere else.
If you CHOOSE to continue working there, you deserve what you get. Just because it's easier to continue going to the same job forever doesn't mean it isn't your fault for choosing the easy way.
Employees need to pull their heads out of their butts and spend just as much effort looking for a better job as companies spend looking for cheaper employees. The people who do that are the ones who end up with better jobs, and the people who don't are the ones who end up stuck in the same job until the company downsizes.
Beat the company at their own game - LEAVE your job for a BETTER one!
That's the whole point. If they can make $30 million more by NOT paying you, then guess what? They should fire you! You're not worth the $30 million.
That's like your plumber telling you "Hey, uh, you should really pay me twice as much, because if you don't, you're just going to keep the money for yourself."
If you want money, EARN it. Don't expect it to just be handed to you.
If you want to make more than the minimum wage, then learn to do something worth more than the minimum wage.
Yes, it sucks that CEOs are paid so much, especially when they're not worth it. But moaning that the CEO makes too much is just scapegoating. It's like complaining that people win the lottery.
Not paying you what you want has nothing to do with how much the CEO makes. In fact, the CEO's *JOB* is to not pay you any more than they have to. That's what companies do.
But you know what? This works both ways. You can work for anybody you want! So find a better job, and work that one!
The problem here isn't that the company is always looking for lower-cost labor. The problem here is that the labor isn't always looking for a better-paying job. If the labor spent as much effort trying to get higher pay as the companies spent trying to pay less, maybe the labor would be making more money.
In your example, there's an agreement between the original party and the person who buys the house. In the original example, there is no agreement between the copying party (A) and the distributing party (B).
And even if there was, it still doesn't matter. The person who wants the source code is C. C can't get the source code from B because B isn't under the GPL because B never copied anything. C can't get the source code from A either because 1) A already gave away the source as it was supposed to with the original binary copy and 2) C doesn't have any agreement with A to enforce. Even in the normal GPL enforcement mechanism where the copyright holders of the GPL's software might come after A, A has met the requirements of the GPL: Whenever they distributed a copy, they distributed the source as well. They're in the clear.
I understand you think it SHOULD be different, but it's not.
What the GPL says doesn't matter. The whole point of the example is that the 2nd party IS NOT BOUND BY THE GPL AT ALL! So it doesn't matter what the GPL says, they have the right to distribute copies because everyone has the right to distribute copies of anything. A license you never agreed to can't take that away.
Yes, distribution is in fact one of the rights held only by the copyright holder and those licensed by the copyright holder.
No, it's not. Making copies is the right held by the copyright holder. Anybody can distribute copies.
Ever heard of Blockbuster? Netflix?
Ever heard of a used book store?
Once a copy is made, you can distribute it at will, without interference of the copyright holder. They've already gotten their money from the copy. They don't get to double-dip and get more money from that same copy, even if the RIAA wished that weren't so.
So the FSF did seem to think copyright law doesn't allow you to distribute, and they have spoken to more lawyers than us.
I think the FSF is using the word distribute in the sense of obtain one copy, distribute many copies. Clearly you can't do that without providing source. But you can certainly obtain 100 copies and then distribute 100 copies.
And the distributor has an incentive to go ahead and make more copies without paying you.
That depends on the distributor. This came up originally in the discussion of satellite receivers with GPL'd software on them. In that case, the distributor has no incentive to make more copies, as they don't have any hardware to run the copies on, and they actually have an incentive to NOT make the source available (to lock you into the hardware they are leasing you.)
This also prevents the end-user from making copies of the program and distributing them, since the license only allows them to copy the program if they make the source available, and they don't have the source.
Even if the original party selling the copies does not intend to limit it's distribution, by merely not distributing the source CDs, the distributor is able to prevent the end user from redistributing the software, since they are required to provide the source code and they don't have it.
Who created the copy they end user now possesses? That entity would seem to be on the hook for providing the source, even though they already provided the source with the device. It is not a one-time obligation.
Yes, it is.
From the GPL:
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,
So there you go. Nobody in this circumstance is obligated to provide the source to the end user.
0. Create a derivative work based on GPL'd software. 1. Sell your derivative work to a distributor as two CDs, one with the compiled code, and one with the source. 2. Distributor discards the CDs with the source and sells the CDs with the binary. 3. PROFIT!
Why this works:
Copyright does not prohibit distribution, only copying. The original party meets their GPL requirement for distributing the source by distributing the source with the binary.
The distributor has no obligation to distribute the source, since they have made no copies, and having not made any copies, have no obligations under the GPL. Thus, the end user can't get the source from either the distributor nor the original party.
The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.
You have this backwards. The requirement that the patent license is provided to everyone *IS* the protection against patent suits for using GPLv3 software.
If a company distributes software under GPLv3, then elects to sue someone for using that software in violation of a patent, they open themselves up to being sued for violating the copyrights in that software by other contributors. Because the contributors have said 'You may not copy my code if you don't give everyone a patent license to use it and the derivative works.'
Separately, you are also only looking at half of the equation. Some users who are willing to pay to not be sued may lose out on being able to have the software. BUT, that doesn't matter any more than it matters that I've 'lost' the ability to run Windows unless I buy it. What *IS* important is that the contributors to free software have the copyrights in THEIR work protected. They have agreed to distribute their work to the community so long as it can be freely redistributed. If you do not prohibit distribution of software with a patent license, you are allowing companies to take the free software, modify it with patent-encumbered software, then UN-freely redistribute it.
This strikes to the very core of what free software is. If you're going to use free software, then you need to provide free software. Patent encumbered software isn't free, and just like we wouldn't allow GPL software to end up in a proprietary binary sold for profit without source, EVEN THOUGH it denies some users that software, we shouldn't let it end up in patent-encumbered source either, EVEN THOUGH it also denies some users that software.
Preventing non-free software from being created with free software is the whole point, isn't it?
All your argument has done is point out that the end user would have to get the software from the person who performed the copying -- you can't strip them of that just because you handled the device as a middleman.
But we did!
If you distribute the binary, the GPL only obligates you to distribute source in one of three ways. One of the ways is by distribting the source with the binary.
So, I give you the binary and the source. I've satisfied my obligations under the GPL and have no further obligation to give the source to anyone. You turn around and give that same copy to someone else. You didn't copy anything, so you're not bound by the GPL either. So now we have the someone else - where can they get the source?
Looks to me like they're screwed, as according to the GPL, no one is obligated to give it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's confusing enough when my husband decides to reprogram the radio buttons so that the stations are in numerical order.
Not as confusing as when you reprogram them to be OUT OF ORDER!
Your examples are bad. If you pay someone else to make copies, that's inducing infringement. If you have the right to make copies and make them yourself, that's perfectly legal.
You're missing cases where B has a natural incentive to not distribute the source. The example that brought this up in another Slashdot news story was the case of a cable TV operator that was distributing receivers with GPL'd software on them. If they bought those receivers from someone else, they have no obligation to distribute the source, and if they got the source with the receivers, they have no motivation to distribute the source themselves. Ergo, the people with the receivers can't get the source, because neither party is obligated to give it to them, and neither party wants to give it to them.
great pop songs
Also known as 'shit 12-year-old girls listen to'.
Yeah, but it takes FOREVER to drive the packets to the capitol and back. Especially during the rainy season.
An average person, with modest needs and simple aspirations, who is willing to do the work they are being paid to do, does not deserve to be mistreated.
Not employing you forever is not mistreatment.
They also just took $30 million out of the consumer buying pool.
No they didn't. They stopped spending $30 million a year on Circuit City sales people. Now that $30 million will get spent on something else.
It is not good for the economy to just keep people employed. Quality of life only improves when people are employed doing something useful. Hell, in an ideal world, machines would do all the work and we'd just sit on our asses all day.
I know you didn't major in Economics! The $30 million they "save" on wages will quickly have a major impact on lost sales and other losses.
You apparently didn't major in economics either. The question is, "Does paying these people $30 million per year make us more than $30 million per year?" and if the answer is no, then you should fire them. Even if you're going to lose $10 million a year because of it. Or even if you're going to lose $20 million.
Now, maybe they'll lose more than $30 million. We don't know. That's a decision of Circuit City's management. If they're going to lose more than $30 million because of it, guess where that loss comes from? That's right, the company. But just because there will be some losses from firing the employees does not mean that firing the employees is not the right decision.
I realize that it does indeed violate their copyright, but as a student, wouldn't you want your paper in their catalog so that some lazy student can't make it through school by plagiarizing YOUR work?
I guess that would depend mainly on how much you were able to sell your paper for.
If your company sucks, leave it and go work somewhere else.
If you CHOOSE to continue working there, you deserve what you get. Just because it's easier to continue going to the same job forever doesn't mean it isn't your fault for choosing the easy way.
Employees need to pull their heads out of their butts and spend just as much effort looking for a better job as companies spend looking for cheaper employees. The people who do that are the ones who end up with better jobs, and the people who don't are the ones who end up stuck in the same job until the company downsizes.
Beat the company at their own game - LEAVE your job for a BETTER one!
I'd rather they staffed 10 losers making $10. Then nobody would harass me when I went in there to shop AND my stuff would cost less.
That's the whole point. If they can make $30 million more by NOT paying you, then guess what? They should fire you! You're not worth the $30 million.
That's like your plumber telling you "Hey, uh, you should really pay me twice as much, because if you don't, you're just going to keep the money for yourself."
If you want money, EARN it. Don't expect it to just be handed to you.
If you want to make more than the minimum wage, then learn to do something worth more than the minimum wage.
Yes, it sucks that CEOs are paid so much, especially when they're not worth it. But moaning that the CEO makes too much is just scapegoating. It's like complaining that people win the lottery.
Not paying you what you want has nothing to do with how much the CEO makes. In fact, the CEO's *JOB* is to not pay you any more than they have to. That's what companies do.
But you know what? This works both ways. You can work for anybody you want! So find a better job, and work that one!
The problem here isn't that the company is always looking for lower-cost labor. The problem here is that the labor isn't always looking for a better-paying job. If the labor spent as much effort trying to get higher pay as the companies spent trying to pay less, maybe the labor would be making more money.
In your example, there's an agreement between the original party and the person who buys the house. In the original example, there is no agreement between the copying party (A) and the distributing party (B).
And even if there was, it still doesn't matter. The person who wants the source code is C. C can't get the source code from B because B isn't under the GPL because B never copied anything. C can't get the source code from A either because 1) A already gave away the source as it was supposed to with the original binary copy and 2) C doesn't have any agreement with A to enforce. Even in the normal GPL enforcement mechanism where the copyright holders of the GPL's software might come after A, A has met the requirements of the GPL: Whenever they distributed a copy, they distributed the source as well. They're in the clear.
I understand you think it SHOULD be different, but it's not.
CrippleNet.
And somebody needs to come up with a better name for it than Net Neutrality.
Something like...
'Uncrippled Internet'
As in...
'Don't support a crippled internet!'
'Stop a crippled internet!'
'Verizon wants to cripple your internet!'
As a end user, you can go to A and ask for the source code. If A doesn't give you the source code, they had NO RIGHT of distributing A-bin.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Go, read the GPL, and tell me where the GPL requires A to give the end user the source.
It does not.
I'm not building a strawman. You're just making stuff up.
What the GPL says doesn't matter. The whole point of the example is that the 2nd party IS NOT BOUND BY THE GPL AT ALL! So it doesn't matter what the GPL says, they have the right to distribute copies because everyone has the right to distribute copies of anything. A license you never agreed to can't take that away.
Yes, distribution is in fact one of the rights held only by the copyright holder and those licensed by the copyright holder.
No, it's not. Making copies is the right held by the copyright holder. Anybody can distribute copies.
Ever heard of Blockbuster? Netflix?
Ever heard of a used book store?
Once a copy is made, you can distribute it at will, without interference of the copyright holder. They've already gotten their money from the copy. They don't get to double-dip and get more money from that same copy, even if the RIAA wished that weren't so.
So the FSF did seem to think copyright law doesn't allow you to distribute, and they have spoken to more lawyers than us.
I think the FSF is using the word distribute in the sense of obtain one copy, distribute many copies. Clearly you can't do that without providing source. But you can certainly obtain 100 copies and then distribute 100 copies.
And the distributor has an incentive to go ahead and make more copies without paying you.
That depends on the distributor. This came up originally in the discussion of satellite receivers with GPL'd software on them. In that case, the distributor has no incentive to make more copies, as they don't have any hardware to run the copies on, and they actually have an incentive to NOT make the source available (to lock you into the hardware they are leasing you.)
This also prevents the end-user from making copies of the program and distributing them, since the license only allows them to copy the program if they make the source available, and they don't have the source.
Even if the original party selling the copies does not intend to limit it's distribution, by merely not distributing the source CDs, the distributor is able to prevent the end user from redistributing the software, since they are required to provide the source code and they don't have it.
Who created the copy they end user now possesses? That entity would seem to be on the hook for providing the source, even though they already provided the source with the device. It is not a one-time obligation.
Yes, it is.
From the GPL:
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,
So there you go. Nobody in this circumstance is obligated to provide the source to the end user.
0. Create a derivative work based on GPL'd software.
1. Sell your derivative work to a distributor as two CDs, one with the compiled code, and one with the source.
2. Distributor discards the CDs with the source and sells the CDs with the binary.
3. PROFIT!
Why this works:
Copyright does not prohibit distribution, only copying. The original party meets their GPL requirement for distributing the source by distributing the source with the binary.
The distributor has no obligation to distribute the source, since they have made no copies, and having not made any copies, have no obligations under the GPL. Thus, the end user can't get the source from either the distributor nor the original party.
The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.
You have this backwards. The requirement that the patent license is provided to everyone *IS* the protection against patent suits for using GPLv3 software.
If a company distributes software under GPLv3, then elects to sue someone for using that software in violation of a patent, they open themselves up to being sued for violating the copyrights in that software by other contributors. Because the contributors have said 'You may not copy my code if you don't give everyone a patent license to use it and the derivative works.'
Separately, you are also only looking at half of the equation. Some users who are willing to pay to not be sued may lose out on being able to have the software. BUT, that doesn't matter any more than it matters that I've 'lost' the ability to run Windows unless I buy it. What *IS* important is that the contributors to free software have the copyrights in THEIR work protected. They have agreed to distribute their work to the community so long as it can be freely redistributed. If you do not prohibit distribution of software with a patent license, you are allowing companies to take the free software, modify it with patent-encumbered software, then UN-freely redistribute it.
This strikes to the very core of what free software is. If you're going to use free software, then you need to provide free software. Patent encumbered software isn't free, and just like we wouldn't allow GPL software to end up in a proprietary binary sold for profit without source, EVEN THOUGH it denies some users that software, we shouldn't let it end up in patent-encumbered source either, EVEN THOUGH it also denies some users that software.
Preventing non-free software from being created with free software is the whole point, isn't it?
All your argument has done is point out that the end user would have to get the software from the person who performed the copying -- you can't strip them of that just because you handled the device as a middleman.
But we did!
If you distribute the binary, the GPL only obligates you to distribute source in one of three ways. One of the ways is by distribting the source with the binary.
So, I give you the binary and the source. I've satisfied my obligations under the GPL and have no further obligation to give the source to anyone. You turn around and give that same copy to someone else. You didn't copy anything, so you're not bound by the GPL either. So now we have the someone else - where can they get the source?
Looks to me like they're screwed, as according to the GPL, no one is obligated to give it to them.