"The professor [Moglen] is essentially saying: give all your copyrights to FSF because otherwise you can never enforce them. Which is obvious bullshit."
So, exactly as I stated, even if professor Moglen (remember he is the one that gave legal form to the GPL, and the one that successfully defended its usage from FSF's part for over a decade) went to your home to explain the GPL's pretended meaning, you'd question him, just as you are doing now.
"That would mean that any contributor, to any GPL code is entitled to go after any corporation which somehow internally distributes some GPL code"
(http://gnu.teleglobe.net/licenses/why-assign.html) "only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors. by Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia University Law School"
"...as it is unknown what GPL code is being used, until fully disclosed"
(http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/) [the FSF way of enforcing GPL] "First, they (the bad guys) release an infringing product. Second, SOMEBODY HAS TO FIND OUT THAT THY USE GPL LICENSED CODE. Then, one of the original authors has to push for license compliance. [Editor's note: the following article was sent to us by Harald Welte, the leader of the Netfilter project.]"
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html) "So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software FOR WHICH THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required. by Eben Moglen"
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html) "...But, WE CANNOT ACT ON OUR OWN IF WE DO NO HOLD COPYRIGHT. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation"
"Indeed, you don't have to do anything at all until someone..."
Ha, ha, ha!!! You are great, man, you are great!
I bet that even if Stallman and Moglen went personally to your home to explain what their intent was, and what the FSF lawyers think the legal value of that clause is, you still would go telling "yes, but the *real* meaning is...".
"...the very activities of FSF, which is, and which I gave you an example of, demanding that source code be made available for many commercial pieces of GPL-ed code embedded in various devices, even though it is very unlikely that the FSF itself is a "customer" for any of those devices"
That's because it is just not the case: when the FSF go after that companies to ask for explanations, they don't go as users of the binaries asking for the sources, but as copyright holders of the embedded code asking them to comply with the license they gave to such code (they don't go as users; they go as authors).
Listen: you are just negating reality. It is not only the case that what I told you is the obvious meaning of that clause, but even the GNU people went far enough to re-explain it without legaleese, just por people like you to understand. They even highlighted the "this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them" part, still *do nothing* (highligthing in the original) means "do something" for you...
OK; I won't follow that path: you are either stupidly stubborn or a troll; both ways I don't think there's any value on this thread anymore.
"The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."
Now, I'll ask you again: Can you bring some authority to your interpretation about what "must be licensed to all third parties" means? I bring to you the interpretation from the FSF (which backs up the GNU Project). After all, maybe even you will accept this phrase is open to interpretation, since you and the GNU Project seem to have a different one. I am not a judge so I don't know what the outcome of a sue about this very point would be, but I can tell that neither the GNU Project (the author of that very paragraph) nor me (which is much less important, of course, but I wanted to point it out: I'm not echoing the GNU interpretation; I only looked for theirs after the fact you adopted a different one, or else I'd mentioned it much sooner), nor anyone else I had the chance to talk about this topics.
I think that although quite childish you diserve a "take that" now.
"k: base = 2, exponent = 10, M: base = 2, exponent = 20, etc Simple"
It migth be not so simple when even the proponent (aka "you") isn't able to apropiately manage the numbers, don't you think so?
How the heck can you use an "exponent 20" when you are working base2? Remember, within base2, the number 2 is the forbidden one: only ones and zeroes allowed.
"IIRC, Stallman/FSF sided with a distributor who was making "private" pre-releases, under a restrictive license that said they'd cut you off if you re-distributed it, in other words you had the right to re-distribute, but if you did they'd terminate your paid-for access to such releases in the future"
I think that this, while quite a bit "dirty" is perfectly legal (but quite stupid too, as we'll se later): the license is offered regarding the binaries its bound to, neither the previous nor the ulterior versions, I think that's obvious.
Telling that you will loose access to *future releases* of such code line is not properly a condition of the license, but an advise regarding how the license will be for *other* programs (it really doesn't matter if such "other" programs come from the same code baseline or other).
Remember I am not bound to give you the source *unless* I gave you the binaries (with the 2b exception). Since I gave you the binaries for version 1.0 I'm under obligation of giving you the sources, and maybe, to any other that has a copy of the 1.0 program if I distributed under 2.b provision.
But then, if you (as I promised I'd do) didn't get from me my flashing 2.0 version, I'm under no obligation to give you the sources.
Of course, you can "overule" this limitation very easily: you can get 2.0 from anyone else and, provided I distributed under 2.b provision I am obligated to give you the sources, disregarding what I previously said, because the version 2.0 is GPL too (well, we suppouse the case where version 2.0 was released under the GPL, of course), which explictly states that "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void"
So, I can forbid you to gain access to the binaries v2 FROM ME if you do this or that with v1, but I can't negate you the sources provided that you legally got the v2 binaries anywhere else, and I can't legally force anyone recieving v2 binaries from me to not redistribute them, even to you, since the proper license I chose to distribute my binaries clearly states that he can and I can't do nothing to avoid it.
"a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party There has been some disagreement about what exactly that phrase means"
Yes, I know. I didn't go that path because it was irrelevant to the thread. For me, I think it's clear, but not obvious.
"What isn't clear is if the original recipient of the binary/offer DOESN'T pass it along, is anyone else entitled to get a copy of the source code from the original distributor simply by knowing that it exists and was distributed as a binary-only w/offer"
Yes, that's the problem. The point here is the cabal definition about what exactly a "third party" is.
I am the first party; you are the second party; anyone reading this thread is a third party. But my mother, who don't even know Slashdot exists is not a third party regarding this thread's matters; she is no party at all.
I see clear that "any third party" in regards of distribution of source code is anyone that manages to legally reach the binaries not being you and me (or the source by that matter, but that's not what we're talking now); people without neither the binaries nor the source is not a party in this bussiness, so they cannot ask "the sourcerer" for the code if they cannot produce a binary under their control.
Let's dramatize it:
The Asker: Hey, Mr programmer, I learnt that you developped some program and distributed only the binaries as per GPL 2b option. The Programmer: So what? A: Well, I want the source code; it's GPL, you know... P: Sure, of course I'll give'm to you!...as soon as you show me the written offer to do so, of course. You know... my memory has become a bit fuzzy lately and I don't remember to have made such an offer.
A1: You know... I, I think I lost the written offer P1: Then, you don't have any document that demonstrates that I'm legally bound to give you the code, do you? You know how judges tend to be... No contract, no bounds.
A2: Sure I have it! there P2: Now I remember... I wrote TWO programs that I distributed under GPL 2b. After all, this is wet paper unless is bound to the code it fits. Do you have the binaries, so I can know what sources I am bound to give you?
A3: Errr... nope. P3: Sorry, man; since we can't know for sure what that offer fits with, I can't give you anything.
A4: Yes, of course, here they are. P4: Everything is OK; here come the sources.
Of course this is an oversimplyfication, specially P2; but just think about it: unless the license (the GPL) is bound to a given binary which it innequivocally referes to, it means nothing:
(from the paragraph 0 of the GPLv2): "0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
The key is *THIS* License (...) *THIS* program. While we tend to think (and rightly so) that licenses like the GPL are abstractions (they are: that's why you can talk about "The GPL", "The BSD", "The Microsoft EULA"...), its legal effectiveness comes from the very piece of paper (or legally equivalent device) it comes written down and applies no less no more than to the object originally bound with.
So, when you ask the developer for the sources alleging you have some rights over them, the developer will rightly ask where those rights of you come from; the only "object" that can grant you those rights is the very "...program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License".
Unless you can show him (or to the judge, in last instance) that program, you haven't gained any rigths, since "nobody" (no-thing, since the offering "body" here is the binary program) has passed them to you.
"A license to drive a vehicle, or even your hypothetical license to the "money in your pocket" are different from software licenses because they are not specific enough"
Yeah, well, and looking at your name you surely will be able to produce the old Roman iure basis that states when a license is "specific enough" and when it isn't.
"But even these contrived examples still do not fully match the nature of software licenses, because, again, they have no exact equivalent in licensing of physical objects."
While it is a recurring meme talking about how PROPERTY with regard of physical objects can't and shouldn't be compared to PROPERTY on the intellectual realm, you are really misleaded here: we are not talking here about physical or intellectual PROPERTIES; we are talking here about licensed RIGHTS, and sorry yes, are RIGHTS with quite essentially independent about the nature of what are they applied to.
I can give you license to drive, in which case I have no obligation to produce a car. I can give you license to drive *my* car on monday to friday, and then I'll probably will be implictly bound to produce the reasonable means within context for you to gain access to my car those days. But I can give you license to drive my car whenever you come to my country; obviously that doesn't mean I'll have to pay for your plane tickets. And if it happens that you never come to my country, thus never exploding your right to drive my car, the license I gave to you is no less "licensing" than if it happens that you come here monthly.
But then, you probably will say again that cars are objects while software is software. OK; I hereby license you to use my very specific copy of Konqueror any time you visit me. Have I to pay your trip? Or maybe I am somehow under obligation to send you a tarball with the program or what? Well, I didn't develop Konqueror, maybe this makes a difference. There: this morning I hacked a short script (nothing fancy, almost a "Hello World", still my own code). I hereby grant you universal rights for usage, modification, redistribution, whatever, from the moment you gain legal access to it onwards, and grant exactly the same rights to whatever third party you distribute the script be it the original, a copy, or a modification. What do you say? Am I under obligation to send the script to you? Even more: Am I under obligation to send the script to anyone else *even* if you manage to legally gain access to it and redistribute? I bet not.
"And I am not sure if that sort of contortion would stand up in court, even if explicitely made, as no other case exists in which software was licensed that way."
What!? *ALL* licenses are granted that way. Just try to buy a NFM license (non physical media) from, say, Microsoft (or Red Hat, or whoever) and then ask for such media. *ANY* software license, in fact, *ANY* intellectual property-related contract or license is implicitly and explicitly disengaged from any physical meaning, and that's their only base of existance. The moment you start thinking an intelectual property right management is somehow engaged with any kind of "physical" object (like a CD, or a given copy of a software program) is the moment you *really* go into very deep problems (then, am I the owner of any given "object", or am I the owner of some non-exclusive rights to do this and that?). Again: the right to *use* the thing and the right to gain access to the thing are very, very different things, no matter if "the thing" is a physical object or a given collection of ones and zeroes.
Even more, the proper "when and why" you can gain access to the thing because you have rights over the thing, is by itself a whole subject on law studies.
"GPL is different because it specifically mentions "third parties", in an effort to avoid a formation of essentially a conspiracy between companies to distribute GPL-ed code between themselves"
And now you, please, summum just a single reputed opinion (say, Stallman) backing your assertion.
"you are obligated, under the GPL, to pass the source code to any "third party" that requests so"
And you please, can literally produce such a point in the license. The more I look at it the more I see that, by the GPL, I have to GRANT RIGHTS, but nothing is said about PASSING THE SOURCE.
There:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
You see? TO BE LICENSED. Were the clever lawyers at the FSF meaning that you should pass a COPY OF THE CODE to any asking so, don't you thing they WOULD SAY SO? Remember this is not the typical EULA where can be argued that the licenser has a contorted aim at seeming to say A when saying B, but just the opposite: they want to be as mean and lean and possible and, heck, they got it.
"You can even ask for a reasonable fee to cover the expense of the data medium. But you are obligated to provide it."
Yes. But only if I previously passed to *YOU* explictly a copy of the binaries. Just grep for "copy" and you will EXACTLY see what and when copies of what must be passed along. You see, the FSF lawyers say copy when they mean COPY and say license when they mean LICENSE:
* On each COPY you must include (as per point 1): 1/ an appropriate copyright notice 2/ a disclaimer of warranty 3/ intact instances of all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty 4/ a copy of this License along with the Program.
* You may copy and distribute modified versions of the executable program provided that: a/ Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code b/ OR 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 c/ OR Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
You see? There is EXPLICIT coverage for the case you were tr
" the license in question is to drive a class of vehicles, which is different from owning one"
And as such, I give you license to *use* my source code if/when ever you put your hands on it, which is different from me *owning* a given copy of it, much less me having to pass you one. If and only if you got binaries from me, you may ask me for the correspondant source code (which, on the other hand, is nothing but logical: since *I* never met in bussiness to you, how is it logical you coming to me asking for something?)
Now: I grant you a license to use whatever money you find in my pocket. Does this mean I'll send to you my pocket's content? alas no. But if *you* manage to legally get access to my pocket, hereby I grant you a license to use what you find in it at your convinience.
"Yes it does. GPL clearly states so"
Where? Me letting you use my code *if* you get legal access to it is nothing more than the State letting you drive a car *if* you legally get such a car. I am in no more obligation to pass you the binaries than the State about providing you with a car, just because it allowed you to drive.
"Otherwise a trick proposed upthread would be possible: a large network of corporations distributing code to each other and excluding everyone else, including the original developers of the code from the process"
That's not a trick. That's simply legally possible, and it is happening *now*. There are voices asking for this to be changed on the future; there are licenses that ask for any change published or not to be sent to the original author, but that's simply not the case for the GPLv2.
"How can you be founding *advantages* to your competitors, when in reality what you are doing is simply keeping the playing field level"
Because you don't know where that path reaches. As you already said, you don't see how a better secure shell program can make any difference when we are talking about such big companies (nor do I). What those companies do know is that somewhere there *is* a competitive advantage (they know it best, since they found the "hired competitive advantage" in the past). For the best they know, it migth be just some steps right or left of even current OpenSSH whitout them figuring it yet; the more powerful OpenSSH comes, the more chances there exists that "short derivative that will somebody earn millions", so to say. Under the GPL, they know that such derivation will be accesable for them at the very moment any of their competitors discovers it (ie: interesting new features on the Linux kernel), and even then, greed, fear to the unknown, or percieved advantages on other fields may avoid them sharing resources (not even water to the enemy). Under the BSD, they won't pay for the chance of others discovering it (ie: the competitive advantages on MacOSX over its BSD licensed foundation).
Please note that I am not telling you are wrong. You are rigth... under the asumption that is the society as a whole the one that benefits from de Raadt development. But the fact is that it is not the "society" the one who pays, but each given company. It's a classical "prisioner dilemma" situation.
"you're missing out on a lot of what people do in polite society"
You said it: "people" and "polite society". Last time I checked, Sun was not "people", nor current occidental society was a polite one.
So, yes, you are saying that Sun owes something indeed, if only it is not written down on a contract. Now: surprise, surprise, companies have nothing to refer to but contracts, and companies are anything but polite human beings.
But that's obvious and disregarding such big hard facts aren't going to make you look like a clever guy.
"Your understanding of what "open source" means is also remarkably incorrect as that movement has more to do with programmatic convenience than you describe."
If you re-read what I wrote, you will see I say nothing about what open source migth mean for open source *developers*: it is what open source *is* for *users*. And it can seem or mean for them whatever you want, but *is*, down to the facts, exactly what I said: do it yourself; or pay others to do it (not in every case *money* payment is needed); or please shut up, since gruntling to the one that gave something for free is not the clever way to take from him something else.
"Which part of "third parties" you do not understand?"
Which part of "licensed at no charge" do you translate as "you have to provide me with some tangible element, be it source or binary"?
Well, if you think "licensing" and "giving it" is the same thing, maybe you can ask the State for a new car, since they got you a driving license.
The meaning of that paragraph is crystal clear: if you get the code under the GPL to somebody you thereby are licensing that code under the GPL to anyone else that gets legal access to such code (but this doesn't mean that *you* will be the one that will get access to the code). This avoid the situation where you license the code to somebody under the GPL but somehow you try lo limit his ability to further distribute it under the GPL (or, conversely, for him to gain any kind of right of exclusivity so you can't distribute it under the GPL to anyone else).
"and then deal with the disaster of finding that even though they are Sun, Apple or Cisco, they DON'T have the expertise in house who can maintain OpenSSH as well as the OpenSSH team"
The "whole OpenSSH team" is, how many? seven guys? It is still "small change" for Sun *OR* HP *OR* IBM. Please remember that there's no such chymera as "Sun and HP and IBM" (that would be the kind of beast that would benefit from supporting de Raadt et al.); it is more on the lines of "Sun against HP against IBM".
Then, please, consider this: currently Sun giving support to the de Raadt team means giving support to HP and IBM, you know, the guys in the "against" phrase. And while de Raadt is humming, the fact is *today* de Raadt is still coding for free and Sun (and IBM and HP, each one by its side) still can get OpenSSH for free and, what it is much more important, without founding advantages to their respective competitors.
Tomorrow *if* de Raadt et al. stop coding and *if* they can't find an appropiate OpenSSH substitute *maybe* one of them would consider hiring de Raadt et at. still for (comparatively) peanuts and, what is again more important, taking them away from their competitors (specially since we are talking about BSD-licensed software here).
*That* does make sense for those corporations.
Oh, and by the way, were OpenSSH licensed under the GPL, then *maybe* there were some chance for the "Sun and HP and IBM" beast comming to live, knowing each of them that the others wouldn't be able to "jump from" the "code base line" add some bells and whistles and make a competitive advantage from it, since immediatly the other parties would know they'd have access to those "bells and whistles". That *maybe* would soustain the needed common ground so they would want to found those "guys out the company control".
"it's just bad business. lately lots of companies got big on open source and seeing how SUN (and others) has openssh based products, it would be freakin common sense to give something back to the developers"
So for any given company give some money in order for Sun (and others not them) go bigger is somehow "freakin common sense", uh?
It seems to me that it is common sense for just a single (group of) company: Sun (and such named others). But then, Sun (and such named others) gives money every week to quite a big bunch of developers. It is only that, as per paragraph#2, giving money away doesn't really seems "freeking common sense" after all, so Sun doesn't give it away; it gives it to certain people which accord to certain ammount of obligations in regard, in order for Sun to insure their expenditure. These people are called "employees". Since de Raadt is not a Sun employee, well, I think you can follow the reasonement.
"Theo's problem is that he expects people to act in their own long-term interests"
Really? Maybe that's only what de Raadt *think* are their long-term interests.
Maybe they think (a quite sustainable position) that their long-term insterest if leave de Raadt go for free as long as he can/want and then pay him peanuts once he is starving. To date, de Raadt is humming, but he is still coding... for free! Maybe those companies' best interest, while seeming a bit rude, is in fact allowing de Raadt code for free for as long as he will. Once de Raadt effectively stops coding, then and only then they will look for the alternatives: why start paying if only a day too early?
"...versus how selfish, greedy, and thankless it makes Sun look today"
To whom? I don't think Sun owes nothing to de Raadt; still they owe fidelity to their shareholders. Maybe the shareholders rest better knowing that Sun doesn't spend money where not strictly needed.
"You see a chance to justify using their works as you see fit by giving us an overly expansive interpretation of licensing"
What the hell!!!??? The BSD license is *pristine*. There's really no place for "expansive interpretation". Not at all!
What Sun did is a *direct* result of the license choosen. I remember something said here at Slashdot about what was the "inner philosophy" of open source for begginners. It was three points: *You can do it yourself, or *You can pay other to do it for you, if you can't/don't want
*...But if you won't do it yourself nor will pay others to do the job, just take what you can for free and, please, shut up.
I can only think it is the best concise explanation about what open source is and is not.
But then, it work both ways: if you want to release your work under an open source license, think about it cautiously, and do it if you really want to. But, please, don't cry about how the bad guys have taken advantage about what it is explicitly stated within your choosen license: you will only look like a consented child or, directly, like a moron.
"In theory they'd be smart enough to feed the golden goose"
Or they would make the best for the quarterly report (does *exist* anything else?) which is take the meal for free.
Maybe this could kill the golden OpenBSD goose. So what? They don't use OpenBSD, do they?
Oh! but then OpenSSH development would halt. So what? It is still uncertain that this will happen. And *if* happens, they still can hire de Raadt *then* (as opposite to "start paying *now*"), and have free meal while they can.
Maybe it is not the world I'd prefer to live in, but I have to say it makes perfect sense to me.
"I'd be really up the creek without OpenBSD for my firewalls (active failover on commodity hardware is a lot cheaper than the commercial alternatives)."
"according to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I must be a hippie for the good of mankind and sell T-shirts."
Outstanding bullshit. It is *exactly* the opposite!!!
According to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher, I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I can sell my services too!
The question is that since the hairdresser won't ask you for money each time somebody see your hair, or a butcher will ask you for money when you buy the meat, but he won't ask for more money if you use it to invite your friends (multiuser license), or if you resell it, the programmer should ask for money against their services (coding) but shouldn't add any kind of extortion about further usage of what you coded, just the same the hairdresser or the butcher won't ask for more than the fair value of their services (cutting hair or selling meat).
"Err, no. As soon as you begin any external "distibution", any old clown who gets the whiff of this can show up and demand both binaries and source. Such is the way of the GPL."
Err, no. Only those that recieve binaries from *you* can ask for the source code to *you*.
And, of course, you can ask for your binaries any amount you deem reasonable.
"But I also have my mail server setup to check spamhaus so I can *NOT* recieve that mail in the first place."
Then, you know where this road takes you.
Dear Mr grasshoppa, in our fight against spam, side by side with the legal forces and (somehow) following their indications, we have to tell you we're going to shut down all your towards-port-25 traffic. Sorry for the incoveniencies.
Only they won't send the letter, you'll find suddenly because your mailq is steadily growing and no mail is going off.
And among the minority that will pay a bit of attention to it at all, quite a big percentage will be saying "after all, no honest individual has any need for a local MTA; they should be using their ISP's anyway".
"the moment they sue, the open source community is so rapid in its ability to adapt, it will simply say "thank you for the heads up," and code a different solution."
The problem with current US patent system is that for too many of those patents there is no "different solution" (...a computer supported system that can make possible a commercial relationship through the use of electronic streams which format is accorded upon directly between the involved parts or by any other means, like an ISO standard, served by a remote computer supported system in control of the vendor... take that). Probably the majority of them can and would be broken in court... at the cost of quite big bags of money the attacked part cannot produce.
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft sells "media packs" for Open License customers (I assume this is what you are referring to)"
Can you tell me where at Microsoft can I get media packs for Windows 95?
"The professor [Moglen] is essentially saying: give all your copyrights to FSF because otherwise you can never enforce them. Which is obvious bullshit."
So, exactly as I stated, even if professor Moglen (remember he is the one that gave legal form to the GPL, and the one that successfully defended its usage from FSF's part for over a decade) went to your home to explain the GPL's pretended meaning, you'd question him, just as you are doing now.
You are either a stubborn moron or a troll (QED).
"OK, let's pretend that this is indeed so, for the sake of amusement."
l )
)
Why "pretend" when we can *stablish*?
There: http://www.gpl-violations.org/
"That would mean that any contributor, to any GPL code is entitled to go after any corporation which somehow internally distributes some GPL code"
(http://gnu.teleglobe.net/licenses/why-assign.htm
"only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
by Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia University Law School"
"...as it is unknown what GPL code is being used, until fully disclosed"
(http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/)
[the FSF way of enforcing GPL]
"First, they (the bad guys) release an infringing product. Second, SOMEBODY HAS TO FIND OUT THAT THY USE GPL LICENSED CODE. Then, one of the original authors has to push for license compliance.
[Editor's note: the following article was sent to us by Harald Welte, the leader of the Netfilter project.]"
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
"So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software FOR WHICH THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required.
by Eben Moglen"
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html)
"...But, WE CANNOT ACT ON OUR OWN IF WE DO NO HOLD COPYRIGHT. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation"
"Indeed, you don't have to do anything at all until someone..."
Ha, ha, ha!!! You are great, man, you are great!
I bet that even if Stallman and Moglen went personally to your home to explain what their intent was, and what the FSF lawyers think the legal value of that clause is, you still would go telling "yes, but the *real* meaning is...".
"...the very activities of FSF, which is, and which I gave you an example of, demanding that source code be made available for many commercial pieces of GPL-ed code embedded in various devices, even though it is very unlikely that the FSF itself is a "customer" for any of those devices"
That's because it is just not the case: when the FSF go after that companies to ask for explanations, they don't go as users of the binaries asking for the sources, but as copyright holders of the embedded code asking them to comply with the license they gave to such code (they don't go as users; they go as authors).
Listen: you are just negating reality. It is not only the case that what I told you is the obvious meaning of that clause, but even the GNU people went far enough to re-explain it without legaleese, just por people like you to understand. They even highlighted the "this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them" part, still *do nothing* (highligthing in the original) means "do something" for you...
OK; I won't follow that path: you are either stupidly stubborn or a troll; both ways I don't think there's any value on this thread anymore.
"This is getting bothersome"
y sModifiedVersions )?
... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?
Yes, that's getting boresome.
So why don't we ask to the very sources ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TheGPLSa
"The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."
Now, I'll ask you again: Can you bring some authority to your interpretation about what "must be licensed to all third parties" means? I bring to you the interpretation from the FSF (which backs up the GNU Project). After all, maybe even you will accept this phrase is open to interpretation, since you and the GNU Project seem to have a different one. I am not a judge so I don't know what the outcome of a sue about this very point would be, but I can tell that neither the GNU Project (the author of that very paragraph) nor me (which is much less important, of course, but I wanted to point it out: I'm not echoing the GNU interpretation; I only looked for theirs after the fact you adopted a different one, or else I'd mentioned it much sooner), nor anyone else I had the chance to talk about this topics.
I think that although quite childish you diserve a "take that" now.
"k: base = 2, exponent = 10, M: base = 2, exponent = 20, etc
Simple"
It migth be not so simple when even the proponent (aka "you") isn't able to apropiately manage the numbers, don't you think so?
How the heck can you use an "exponent 20" when you are working base2? Remember, within base2, the number 2 is the forbidden one: only ones and zeroes allowed.
"IIRC, Stallman/FSF sided with a distributor who was making "private" pre-releases, under a restrictive license that said they'd cut you off if you re-distributed it, in other words you had the right to re-distribute, but if you did they'd terminate your paid-for access to such releases in the future"
I think that this, while quite a bit "dirty" is perfectly legal (but quite stupid too, as we'll se later): the license is offered regarding the binaries its bound to, neither the previous nor the ulterior versions, I think that's obvious.
Telling that you will loose access to *future releases* of such code line is not properly a condition of the license, but an advise regarding how the license will be for *other* programs (it really doesn't matter if such "other" programs come from the same code baseline or other).
Remember I am not bound to give you the source *unless* I gave you the binaries (with the 2b exception). Since I gave you the binaries for version 1.0 I'm under obligation of giving you the sources, and maybe, to any other that has a copy of the 1.0 program if I distributed under 2.b provision.
But then, if you (as I promised I'd do) didn't get from me my flashing 2.0 version, I'm under no obligation to give you the sources.
Of course, you can "overule" this limitation very easily: you can get 2.0 from anyone else and, provided I distributed under 2.b provision I am obligated to give you the sources, disregarding what I previously said, because the version 2.0 is GPL too (well, we suppouse the case where version 2.0 was released under the GPL, of course), which explictly states that "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void"
So, I can forbid you to gain access to the binaries v2 FROM ME if you do this or that with v1, but I can't negate you the sources provided that you legally got the v2 binaries anywhere else, and I can't legally force anyone recieving v2 binaries from me to not redistribute them, even to you, since the proper license I chose to distribute my binaries clearly states that he can and I can't do nothing to avoid it.
"a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party
...as soon as you show me the written offer to do so, of course. You know... my memory has become a bit fuzzy lately and I don't remember to have made such an offer.
There has been some disagreement about what exactly that phrase means"
Yes, I know. I didn't go that path because it was irrelevant to the thread. For me, I think it's clear, but not obvious.
"What isn't clear is if the original recipient of the binary/offer DOESN'T pass it along, is anyone else entitled to get a copy of the source code from the original distributor simply by knowing that it exists and was distributed as a binary-only w/offer"
Yes, that's the problem. The point here is the cabal definition about what exactly a "third party" is.
I am the first party; you are the second party; anyone reading this thread is a third party. But my mother, who don't even know Slashdot exists is not a third party regarding this thread's matters; she is no party at all.
I see clear that "any third party" in regards of distribution of source code is anyone that manages to legally reach the binaries not being you and me (or the source by that matter, but that's not what we're talking now); people without neither the binaries nor the source is not a party in this bussiness, so they cannot ask "the sourcerer" for the code if they cannot produce a binary under their control.
Let's dramatize it:
The Asker: Hey, Mr programmer, I learnt that you developped some program and distributed only the binaries as per GPL 2b option.
The Programmer: So what?
A: Well, I want the source code; it's GPL, you know...
P: Sure, of course I'll give'm to you!
A1: You know... I, I think I lost the written offer
P1: Then, you don't have any document that demonstrates that I'm legally bound to give you the code, do you? You know how judges tend to be... No contract, no bounds.
A2: Sure I have it! there
P2: Now I remember... I wrote TWO programs that I distributed under GPL 2b. After all, this is wet paper unless is bound to the code it fits. Do you have the binaries, so I can know what sources I am bound to give you?
A3: Errr... nope.
P3: Sorry, man; since we can't know for sure what that offer fits with, I can't give you anything.
A4: Yes, of course, here they are.
P4: Everything is OK; here come the sources.
Of course this is an oversimplyfication, specially P2; but just think about it: unless the license (the GPL) is bound to a given binary which it innequivocally referes to, it means nothing:
(from the paragraph 0 of the GPLv2):
"0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License."
The key is *THIS* License (...) *THIS* program. While we tend to think (and rightly so) that licenses like the GPL are abstractions (they are: that's why you can talk about "The GPL", "The BSD", "The Microsoft EULA"...), its legal effectiveness comes from the very piece of paper (or legally equivalent device) it comes written down and applies no less no more than to the object originally bound with.
So, when you ask the developer for the sources alleging you have some rights over them, the developer will rightly ask where those rights of you come from; the only "object" that can grant you those rights is the very "...program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License".
Unless you can show him (or to the judge, in last instance) that program, you haven't gained any rigths, since "nobody" (no-thing, since the offering "body" here is the binary program) has passed them to you.
"A license to drive a vehicle, or even your hypothetical license to the "money in your pocket" are different from software licenses because they are not specific enough"
Yeah, well, and looking at your name you surely will be able to produce the old Roman iure basis that states when a license is "specific enough" and when it isn't.
"But even these contrived examples still do not fully match the nature of software licenses, because, again, they have no exact equivalent in licensing of physical objects."
While it is a recurring meme talking about how PROPERTY with regard of physical objects can't and shouldn't be compared to PROPERTY on the intellectual realm, you are really misleaded here: we are not talking here about physical or intellectual PROPERTIES; we are talking here about licensed RIGHTS, and sorry yes, are RIGHTS with quite essentially independent about the nature of what are they applied to.
I can give you license to drive, in which case I have no obligation to produce a car.
I can give you license to drive *my* car on monday to friday, and then I'll probably will be implictly bound to produce the reasonable means within context for you to gain access to my car those days.
But I can give you license to drive my car whenever you come to my country; obviously that doesn't mean I'll have to pay for your plane tickets. And if it happens that you never come to my country, thus never exploding your right to drive my car, the license I gave to you is no less "licensing" than if it happens that you come here monthly.
But then, you probably will say again that cars are objects while software is software. OK; I hereby license you to use my very specific copy of Konqueror any time you visit me. Have I to pay your trip? Or maybe I am somehow under obligation to send you a tarball with the program or what? Well, I didn't develop Konqueror, maybe this makes a difference. There: this morning I hacked a short script (nothing fancy, almost a "Hello World", still my own code). I hereby grant you universal rights for usage, modification, redistribution, whatever, from the moment you gain legal access to it onwards, and grant exactly the same rights to whatever third party you distribute the script be it the original, a copy, or a modification. What do you say? Am I under obligation to send the script to you? Even more: Am I under obligation to send the script to anyone else *even* if you manage to legally gain access to it and redistribute? I bet not.
"And I am not sure if that sort of contortion would stand up in court, even if explicitely made, as no other case exists in which software was licensed that way."
What!? *ALL* licenses are granted that way. Just try to buy a NFM license (non physical media) from, say, Microsoft (or Red Hat, or whoever) and then ask for such media. *ANY* software license, in fact, *ANY* intellectual property-related contract or license is implicitly and explicitly disengaged from any physical meaning, and that's their only base of existance. The moment you start thinking an intelectual property right management is somehow engaged with any kind of "physical" object (like a CD, or a given copy of a software program) is the moment you *really* go into very deep problems (then, am I the owner of any given "object", or am I the owner of some non-exclusive rights to do this and that?). Again: the right to *use* the thing and the right to gain access to the thing are very, very different things, no matter if "the thing" is a physical object or a given collection of ones and zeroes.
Even more, the proper "when and why" you can gain access to the thing because you have rights over the thing, is by itself a whole subject on law studies.
"GPL is different because it specifically mentions "third parties", in an effort to avoid a formation of essentially a conspiracy between companies to distribute GPL-ed code between themselves"
And now you, please, summum just a single reputed opinion (say, Stallman) backing your assertion.
"you are obligated, under the GPL, to pass the source code to any "third party" that requests so"
And you please, can literally produce such a point in the license. The more I look at it the more I see that, by the GPL, I have to GRANT RIGHTS, but nothing is said about PASSING THE SOURCE.
There:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
You see? TO BE LICENSED. Were the clever lawyers at the FSF meaning that you should pass a COPY OF THE CODE to any asking so, don't you thing they WOULD SAY SO? Remember this is not the typical EULA where can be argued that the licenser has a contorted aim at seeming to say A when saying B, but just the opposite: they want to be as mean and lean and possible and, heck, they got it.
"You can even ask for a reasonable fee to cover the expense of the data medium. But you are obligated to provide it."
Yes. But only if I previously passed to *YOU* explictly a copy of the binaries. Just grep for "copy" and you will EXACTLY see what and when copies of what must be passed along. You see, the FSF lawyers say copy when they mean COPY and say license when they mean LICENSE:
* On each COPY you must include (as per point 1):
1/ an appropriate copyright notice
2/ a disclaimer of warranty
3/ intact instances of all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty
4/ a copy of this License along with the Program.
* You may copy and distribute modified versions of the executable program provided that:
a/ Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code
b/ OR 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
c/ OR Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
You see? There is EXPLICIT coverage for the case you were tr
" the license in question is to drive a class of vehicles, which is different from owning one"
And as such, I give you license to *use* my source code if/when ever you put your hands on it, which is different from me *owning* a given copy of it, much less me having to pass you one. If and only if you got binaries from me, you may ask me for the correspondant source code (which, on the other hand, is nothing but logical: since *I* never met in bussiness to you, how is it logical you coming to me asking for something?)
Now: I grant you a license to use whatever money you find in my pocket.
Does this mean I'll send to you my pocket's content? alas no. But if *you* manage to legally get access to my pocket, hereby I grant you a license to use what you find in it at your convinience.
"Yes it does. GPL clearly states so"
Where? Me letting you use my code *if* you get legal access to it is nothing more than the State letting you drive a car *if* you legally get such a car. I am in no more obligation to pass you the binaries than the State about providing you with a car, just because it allowed you to drive.
"Otherwise a trick proposed upthread would be possible: a large network of corporations distributing code to each other and excluding everyone else, including the original developers of the code from the process"
That's not a trick. That's simply legally possible, and it is happening *now*. There are voices asking for this to be changed on the future; there are licenses that ask for any change published or not to be sent to the original author, but that's simply not the case for the GPLv2.
"How can you be founding *advantages* to your competitors, when in reality what you are doing is simply keeping the playing field level"
Because you don't know where that path reaches. As you already said, you don't see how a better secure shell program can make any difference when we are talking about such big companies (nor do I). What those companies do know is that somewhere there *is* a competitive advantage (they know it best, since they found the "hired competitive advantage" in the past). For the best they know, it migth be just some steps right or left of even current OpenSSH whitout them figuring it yet; the more powerful OpenSSH comes, the more chances there exists that "short derivative that will somebody earn millions", so to say. Under the GPL, they know that such derivation will be accesable for them at the very moment any of their competitors discovers it (ie: interesting new features on the Linux kernel), and even then, greed, fear to the unknown, or percieved advantages on other fields may avoid them sharing resources (not even water to the enemy). Under the BSD, they won't pay for the chance of others discovering it (ie: the competitive advantages on MacOSX over its BSD licensed foundation).
Please note that I am not telling you are wrong. You are rigth... under the asumption that is the society as a whole the one that benefits from de Raadt development. But the fact is that it is not the "society" the one who pays, but each given company. It's a classical "prisioner dilemma" situation.
"you're missing out on a lot of what people do in polite society"
You said it: "people" and "polite society". Last time I checked, Sun was not "people", nor current occidental society was a polite one.
So, yes, you are saying that Sun owes something indeed, if only it is not written down on a contract. Now: surprise, surprise, companies have nothing to refer to but contracts, and companies are anything but polite human beings.
But that's obvious and disregarding such big hard facts aren't going to make you look like a clever guy.
"Your understanding of what "open source" means is also remarkably incorrect as that movement has more to do with programmatic convenience than you describe."
If you re-read what I wrote, you will see I say nothing about what open source migth mean for open source *developers*: it is what open source *is* for *users*. And it can seem or mean for them whatever you want, but *is*, down to the facts, exactly what I said: do it yourself; or pay others to do it (not in every case *money* payment is needed); or please shut up, since gruntling to the one that gave something for free is not the clever way to take from him something else.
"And if you are BSD or GPL you still sell your services, there is not GPL advantage here."
Who said there were differences in this regard? Not me, so your point was?
"Which part of "third parties" you do not understand?"
Which part of "licensed at no charge" do you translate as "you have to provide me with some tangible element, be it source or binary"?
Well, if you think "licensing" and "giving it" is the same thing, maybe you can ask the State for a new car, since they got you a driving license.
The meaning of that paragraph is crystal clear: if you get the code under the GPL to somebody you thereby are licensing that code under the GPL to anyone else that gets legal access to such code (but this doesn't mean that *you* will be the one that will get access to the code). This avoid the situation where you license the code to somebody under the GPL but somehow you try lo limit his ability to further distribute it under the GPL (or, conversely, for him to gain any kind of right of exclusivity so you can't distribute it under the GPL to anyone else).
"and then deal with the disaster of finding that even though they are Sun, Apple or Cisco, they DON'T have the expertise in house who can maintain OpenSSH as well as the OpenSSH team"
The "whole OpenSSH team" is, how many? seven guys? It is still "small change" for Sun *OR* HP *OR* IBM. Please remember that there's no such chymera as "Sun and HP and IBM" (that would be the kind of beast that would benefit from supporting de Raadt et al.); it is more on the lines of "Sun against HP against IBM".
Then, please, consider this: currently Sun giving support to the de Raadt team means giving support to HP and IBM, you know, the guys in the "against" phrase. And while de Raadt is humming, the fact is *today* de Raadt is still coding for free and Sun (and IBM and HP, each one by its side) still can get OpenSSH for free and, what it is much more important, without founding advantages to their respective competitors.
Tomorrow *if* de Raadt et al. stop coding and *if* they can't find an appropiate OpenSSH substitute *maybe* one of them would consider hiring de Raadt et at. still for (comparatively) peanuts and, what is again more important, taking them away from their competitors (specially since we are talking about BSD-licensed software here).
*That* does make sense for those corporations.
Oh, and by the way, were OpenSSH licensed under the GPL, then *maybe* there were some chance for the "Sun and HP and IBM" beast comming to live, knowing each of them that the others wouldn't be able to "jump from" the "code base line" add some bells and whistles and make a competitive advantage from it, since immediatly the other parties would know they'd have access to those "bells and whistles". That *maybe* would soustain the needed common ground so they would want to found those "guys out the company control".
Under the BSD? No way!
"it's just bad business. lately lots of companies got big on open source and seeing how SUN (and others) has openssh based products, it would be freakin common sense to give something back to the developers"
So for any given company give some money in order for Sun (and others not them) go bigger is somehow "freakin common sense", uh?
It seems to me that it is common sense for just a single (group of) company: Sun (and such named others). But then, Sun (and such named others) gives money every week to quite a big bunch of developers. It is only that, as per paragraph#2, giving money away doesn't really seems "freeking common sense" after all, so Sun doesn't give it away; it gives it to certain people which accord to certain ammount of obligations in regard, in order for Sun to insure their expenditure. These people are called "employees". Since de Raadt is not a Sun employee, well, I think you can follow the reasonement.
"Theo's problem is that he expects people to act in their own long-term interests"
Really? Maybe that's only what de Raadt *think* are their long-term interests.
Maybe they think (a quite sustainable position) that their long-term insterest if leave de Raadt go for free as long as he can/want and then pay him peanuts once he is starving. To date, de Raadt is humming, but he is still coding... for free! Maybe those companies' best interest, while seeming a bit rude, is in fact allowing de Raadt code for free for as long as he will. Once de Raadt effectively stops coding, then and only then they will look for the alternatives: why start paying if only a day too early?
"...versus how selfish, greedy, and thankless it makes Sun look today"
To whom? I don't think Sun owes nothing to de Raadt; still they owe fidelity to their shareholders. Maybe the shareholders rest better knowing that Sun doesn't spend money where not strictly needed.
"You see a chance to justify using their works as you see fit by giving us an overly expansive interpretation of licensing"
What the hell!!!??? The BSD license is *pristine*. There's really no place for "expansive interpretation". Not at all!
What Sun did is a *direct* result of the license choosen. I remember something said here at Slashdot about what was the "inner philosophy" of open source for begginners. It was three points:
*You can do it yourself, or
*You can pay other to do it for you, if you can't/don't want
*...But if you won't do it yourself nor will pay others to do the job, just take what you can for free and, please, shut up.
I can only think it is the best concise explanation about what open source is and is not.
But then, it work both ways: if you want to release your work under an open source license, think about it cautiously, and do it if you really want to. But, please, don't cry about how the bad guys have taken advantage about what it is explicitly stated within your choosen license: you will only look like a consented child or, directly, like a moron.
"Let me tell you a little secret. Theo does not get paid to speak. He refuses that kind of money."
Then the previous poster must be right: there goes "Founding Opportunity #101".
"In theory they'd be smart enough to feed the golden goose"
Or they would make the best for the quarterly report (does *exist* anything else?) which is take the meal for free.
Maybe this could kill the golden OpenBSD goose. So what? They don't use OpenBSD, do they?
Oh! but then OpenSSH development would halt. So what? It is still uncertain that this will happen. And *if* happens, they still can hire de Raadt *then* (as opposite to "start paying *now*"), and have free meal while they can.
Maybe it is not the world I'd prefer to live in, but I have to say it makes perfect sense to me.
"I'd be really up the creek without OpenBSD for my firewalls (active failover on commodity hardware is a lot cheaper than the commercial alternatives)."
As if there were no other free choices.
"according to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I must be a hippie for the good of mankind and sell T-shirts."
Outstanding bullshit. It is *exactly* the opposite!!!
According to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher, I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I can sell my services too!
The question is that since the hairdresser won't ask you for money each time somebody see your hair, or a butcher will ask you for money when you buy the meat, but he won't ask for more money if you use it to invite your friends (multiuser license), or if you resell it, the programmer should ask for money against their services (coding) but shouldn't add any kind of extortion about further usage of what you coded, just the same the hairdresser or the butcher won't ask for more than the fair value of their services (cutting hair or selling meat).
"Err, no. As soon as you begin any external "distibution", any old clown who gets the whiff of this can show up and demand both binaries and source. Such is the way of the GPL."
Err, no. Only those that recieve binaries from *you* can ask for the source code to *you*.
And, of course, you can ask for your binaries any amount you deem reasonable.
"But I also have my mail server setup to check spamhaus so I can *NOT* recieve that mail in the first place."
Then, you know where this road takes you.
Dear Mr grasshoppa, in our fight against spam, side by side with the legal forces and (somehow) following their indications, we have to tell you we're going to shut down all your towards-port-25 traffic. Sorry for the incoveniencies.
Only they won't send the letter, you'll find suddenly because your mailq is steadily growing and no mail is going off.
And among the minority that will pay a bit of attention to it at all, quite a big percentage will be saying "after all, no honest individual has any need for a local MTA; they should be using their ISP's anyway".
"the moment they sue, the open source community is so rapid in its ability to adapt, it will simply say "thank you for the heads up," and code a different solution."
The problem with current US patent system is that for too many of those patents there is no "different solution" (...a computer supported system that can make possible a commercial relationship through the use of electronic streams which format is accorded upon directly between the involved parts or by any other means, like an ISO standard, served by a remote computer supported system in control of the vendor... take that). Probably the majority of them can and would be broken in court... at the cost of quite big bags of money the attacked part cannot produce.