On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Vic <busy...@beer.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> It seems you don't understand how reality works.
>
> See, now you're just getting offensive.
>
> You've said something that is demonstrably factually incorrect about the
> GPL. Let's just leav it like that, shall we?
>
>> One _must_ not cross the street when the red light is on,
>
> Utter rubbish.
It happens to be true.
>> Yes, companies must pass the same rights to the recipient, but then
>> often don't. It happens, really.
>
> If they fail to do so, they are not compliant with the terms under which
> they are distributing. That's no different whatsoever from me making hooky
> copies of "Pirates of the Caribbean" and selling it on at car boot sales.
> It's simply a case of copying without a licence so to do.
That's right, but the original authors of "Pirates of the Caribbean"
will make use of their rights granted by copyright law, and sue the
distributor.
On the other hand, if they choose not to do anything, that's
completely their choice. If *I* choose not to enforce my rights,
nothing happens. Just like nothing happens if I get assaulted, but I
choose to press no charges... It's completely up to me how I exercise
my rights.
> Trying to infer somethnig about the GLP from that is a fool's errand; it
> says nothing whatosever because it is simply unlawful copying.
It is unlawful *only* if the original author says it's so.
> The GPL, however, has one more thing to say: should the above occur, the
> recipient *still* gets all his GPL rights directly from the original
> licensor, despite the distributor not being in compliance. This is section
> 6 of GPLv2, section 10 of GPLv3. So even in your scenario, the end-user
> *still* receives those rights from the original licensor, despite the
> middle-man unlawfully trying to prevent that happening.
The GPL might say so, but there's no law that will allow this.
Imagine that I use another license, the EPL (evil public license),
which says the licensee must give the licensor their firstborn, and,
like copyleft licenses, they must distribute the software (binaries or
sourcecode) under the same license. What happens if you buy a product
that uses such software, but you never see such license, are you bound
by this? No, of course not! Each pair of licensor-licensee is a
separate contract, if you don't get the license in any way, you are
not a licensee of this evil license. Period.
Imagine this chain:
1) Felipe (licensor) -> Omar (licensee) # Omar downloads my source
code that is publicly available through the GPL
2) Omar (licensor) -> Federico (licensee) # Federico gets the same
source code, but doesn't see the licenses (Omar removed them, and the
copyright notices)
3) Federico (licensor) -> Sony (licensee) # Sony gets the
source code by paying money to Federico, which provides it with a
propriety license
4) Sony (licensor) -> End user (licensee) # The end user
buys a product from Sony which uses the original software, but doesn't
show any license
Did Sony violate the GPL? No, they never saw it. Did Federico? No, he
never saw it. Omar is the one that changed the license, and he did so
against copyright law. I can't sue Sony, nor Federico, they never did
anything wrong.
_You_ can say that they they all violated the GPL, because they did
something that was explicitly prohibited in the GPL. But what the GPL
says is irrelevant, licenses encompass what happens between the
licensor and the licensee, and to blame Federico, or Sony, for
something they were not aware of would be unfair, like it would be
unfair to ask the End User for their firstborn if Felipe had chosen
the EPL instead of the GPL. A court of law would only find Omar
guilty, because Omar is the only one that received the code under the
GPL license, he broke the chain.
Imagine another chain:
1) Felipe -> Omar # Omar steals my watch
2) Omar -> Federico # Omar sells the watch to Federico
3) Federico -> End User # Federico sells the watch to the End User
Neither Federico nor the End User knew the watch was stolen, are they
liable? No, of course not! Each person is liable for their own
transaction, and nothing more, if their transaction was completely
legitimate, they have nothing to fear.
Finally, imagine this one:
1) Felipe -> Omar # Omar gets my watch free with a license that says
we will not sell it, if he gives to somebody else, it must be free,
and with the same license
2) Omar -> Federico # Omar sells the watch to Federico, no license
3) Federico -> End User # Federico sells the watch to the End User
It is the same, Omar is the one to blame, he broke the viral license
chain, and the rest of the participants can't be blamed because they
never saw any license, so they never violated it.
>> I don't give the end users anything
>
> Yes you do. Read the sections I've just highlighted. Your understanding is
> simply incorrect.
I don't, I'm neither the licensor, nor the licensee. A company
distributing the software on their products would be the licensor,
_they_ give the user their rights through the EULA, _if_ they choose
to do so.
>> I give permission to the software
>> users, and what they do is their own problem. They can choose to
>> violate the license, and in that case the end users get nothing.
>
> This is factually incorrect.
No, it is true.
Just like it is true that people can choose to cross while the light
is red. Really, it does happen.
>> The end users receive their rights from the company, not from me.
>
> This is factually incorrect.
It is true.
>> No, I didn't say anything like that
>
> You made a definitive (untrue) statement about the GPL, then said "I'm not
> talking about the GPL". You said something exactly like that.
>
>> it's particularily convenient that you didn't quote what I wrote right
>> after this
>
> You've said so much, it's tricky to quote all of it. Most of what you've
> said is erroneous, and I don't really want to quote it anyway.
>
>>> In the specific case of the GPL, the company might be violating the
>>> GPL, so the end user would not see the license, but that's a problem
>>> between me, and the company; the licensor, and the licensee.
>
> And that is fundamentally untrue.
It's true.
>> See? The GPL is no exception; the license is still a contract between
>> the licensor (me), and the licensee (the company).
>
> No, you've misrepresented the GPL. You do not know whereof yuo speak.
What the GPL says is irrelevant, what is relevant is the law.
>> The end user has another license between the the company (licensor),
>> and the end user (licensee). *If* the company chooses to do that.
>
> No. The end-user has a grant of rights directly from the original
> licensor. It's in the licence, if you'd like to read it sometime...
The license is irrelevant. The license cannot change contract law.
>> The company might chose to not do that, in which case it will be in
>> violation of the license from me, *but* I can choose to not do
>> anything about it.
>
> You can indeed. But that does *not* preclude the end-user from getting the
> rights grant, just like the licence says they do.
Only if the company grants them such rights in the EULA. Not if they don't.
>> It's entire up to me what license I choose, and it's entirely up to me
>> to decide how to enforce it. There's nothing wrong with choosing a BSD
>> license, or a GPL license and not enforce it. It's *my* choice.
>
> It is indeed.
>
> But your not enforcing a GPL licenmce that you have already chosen does
> *not* mean that the end-user gets no rights - they do. Those rights are
> granted in the licence, and persist as long as that user does not violate
> the licence. Someone else violating the licence does *not* mean that all
> downstream recipients lost those rights; they keep them.
Yes it does mean that. When the chain is broken, it's broken. The rest
of the people in the chain don't receive the rights and
responsibilities of the the license, and only the licensee that broke
it can be sued, either for breaking the license (from the previous
licensor), or by breaking copyright law (by the copyright owner).
> this is all in the licence. I strongly suggest you read it, rather than
> just making it up as you go along.
What the license says is irrelevant, what is relevant is the law.
>> It's copyright that gives original authors protection, and makes the
>> GPL enforceable.
>
> That's where most of the teeth come from, but not all of them. Contract
> law has something to say in many jurisdictions.
Contract law pertains only to the relationship between the licensor,
and the licensee.
>> If I chose not to enforce the license, and the end users didn't get
>> the license, the end users get nothing, and there's nothing the FSF
>> can do about it. It doesn't matter what is written in the GPL.
>
> Errr - have I mentioned just how wrong you are about that?
It's true.
>> A contract is also between two parties, and if the two parties don't
>> have a problem, there's no problem.
>
> And if one of them does have a problem - there is a problem.
>
> You persist in claiming that the end-user gets no rights, despite the very
> clear plain language in the GPL. Either you're right, and the GPL doesn't
> say what the GPL says, or else you're wrong. Can you take a guess as to
> whether or not the GPL says what the GPL says?
What the GPL says is irrelevant. It cannot change that contract law says.
>> It is still correct, because the GPL can only give rights to end users
>> *if* I chose to enforce the GPL
>
> Untrue.
True.
>> or *if* the company distributed the
>> software with that license.
>
> Untrue.
True.
>> In the first case, it's entirely up to me, I can make it go away in a
>> whim.
>
> You can only choose not to enforce your own rights. You cannot remove
> someone else's, however much you seem to want to.
They never received those rights, they didn't get the software with a
GPL license.
>>> The end-user has rights granted him regardless of what any intervening
>>> distributor might try to do.
>>
>> Only if *I* choose to enforce the license.
>
> Wrong.
Right.
>>> Really - you ought to read the GPL. It says different things to what you
>>> claim it says.
>>
>> What the GPL says is irrelevant. Get it?
>
> What the GPL says is *not* irrelevant. Get it?
Oh, so you are saying that the GPL has prevalence over contract law?
>> One more time: the end users get their rights from the company
>
> Wrong.
Right.
>> *if* I choose not to enforce them, the users get nothing
>
> Wrong.
Right.
>> it doesn't
>> matter what the GPL says, because both sides, me (the licensor), and
>> the company (the licensee) choose to ignore it. Period.
>
> Wrong.
Right.
> Really, holding forth about stuff you clearly don't understand and don't
> even appear to have read is not doing yuo any favours here.
Is that all you have? Your argument boils down to "You are wrong".
It's obviously a waste of time to discuss with you, because your
discussion skills are not beyond the ones of a five years old who can
only say "You are wrong", I already provided my arguments, so I will
not reply to you any more.
Here, have some facts:
License:
A license may be granted by a party ("licensor") to another party
("licensee") as an element of an agreement between those parties. A
shorthand definition of a license is "an authorization (by the
licensor) to use the licensed material (by the licensee)."
See? Two parties. That's _all_. The GPL might try to involve parties
other than the licensor, and the licensee, but that's not covered in
contract laws, so that's irrelevant, only what happens between the
licensor and the licensee is relevant. This is basic common sense.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
