Rogelio Serrano wrote:
Does the gpl stand in Philippine law?Hi Rog, I hope I can answer sweetly and clearly your inquiry. here it goes... **hold's breath* It should but... Hence, we placed section 6 of the bill which grants legal recognition to FOSS license (note, we used FOSS as in Free/Open Source Software, not Free Open Source Software, the bill's definition of FOSS will tell us why. For additional details, you can also visit IOSN-UNDP website). What do I mean when I said it should but.... The civil code forces all parties to abide by contracts and agreements, written or otherwise except if the contract or agreement violates laws and statutes. Hence, using that legal principle, when you agreed on the GPL, you enter into a contract and should abide by it. But GPL, like any other "copyright" contracts / licenses, has special meanings and functions attached to it -- which are implied (not necessarily written on the contract but are there). Things like transfer of copyrights, use, protected use, agreement on usage, etc. Unfortunately, due to varying definitions of FOSS, anybody can just question the interpretation of one FOSS contract over the other, at some instances, can even refuse to recognize FOSS contracts because of interpretations (misinterpretations). One very susceptible vague interpretation of GPL for example (I don't know if this is already remedied, please update me) is regarding the use and modification of software for private use. Is this protected by the copyright or should it be allowed? Remember, eventhough the software is free and open does not necessarily mean it is not copyrighted. At most, even if it is not copyrighted, one still has an obligation under the law to recognize the creator of the program when using it for public purposes, and the creator has the same responsibility as well to accept responsibility over his/her creations. But what when you modify it, use it privately and do something illegal with it? Where does the accountability of the copyright holder end? Things like these preempt general usage of FOSS in government. The most tacky issue is "transfer of copyrights". Since you "bought" it, and substantially you're free to modify it, is it tantamount to transfer of copyright? I can almost hear true FOSS advocates say "ofcourse not", but guess again. Another, is the contractor's liability when s/he used FOSS and patented it! We always say that the terms and conditions surrounding the use and distribution of the software must be tied to its original license. It said so in the GPL! But since no one contests it, and the law does not grant automatic recognition to FOSS licenses, anyone can refute it and say, "Hey, it's not yours anymore because I substantially altered it hence I have the right to copyright the new one or worse, patent it." The effect therefore of Section 6 are: (1) FOSS licenses will be recognized as such, a contract *and* a license, failure to abide by the agreement nulls and voids anything you did with it nor its byproducts, (2) since FOSS will be recognized in Philippine law, jurisprudence on FOSS on other countries as well as interpretation of it by other respected collegial bodies becomes legally guiding and in the long run, binding, (3) breach of FOSS licenses now becomes a subject of civil suit, and (4) as in enumeration (2), any juridical body's interpretation of FOSS is guided by the bill's defintion of FOSS (which granted its recognition in the first place). There's a catch (there always is) for a FOSS contract / license to be legally recognized, it *must* conform with the bill's definition of FOSS. I hope I did clarify the matter and not help obfuscate it. :-) ~Jeff |
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
