Re: License
At 07:18 PM 3/30/00 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: >Justin Wells wrote: > > > > The consensus on the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has been > > that you should draft a license which you think fits the definition > > and simply start using it. If your software is important enough to > > draw attention, then sooner or later someone will be interested in > > seeing to it that your license is compliant. At that point one of > > the OSI principals would likely approach you and your license would > > wind its way through the approval process. > > > > If you post your license to the license-discuss list you WILL likely > > get some useful feedback, but no approval, unless you are high > > profile enough. In which case, go to Perens, etc., directly rather > > than via the list. > > > >Well, it appears to me that Apache is kinda important enough and >would have drawn at least some attention. But what do I know??? > >PS: Yep, I'm CCing to to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Honestly, I'll be impressed if anyone "official" even notices. Color me crazy, but I don't think anyone pays attention to the license-discuss list anymore except for us "peons". :( D
Re: License
Justin Wells wrote: > > The consensus on the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has been > that you should draft a license which you think fits the definition > and simply start using it. If your software is important enough to > draw attention, then sooner or later someone will be interested in > seeing to it that your license is compliant. At that point one of > the OSI principals would likely approach you and your license would > wind its way through the approval process. > > If you post your license to the license-discuss list you WILL likely > get some useful feedback, but no approval, unless you are high > profile enough. In which case, go to Perens, etc., directly rather > than via the list. > Well, it appears to me that Apache is kinda important enough and would have drawn at least some attention. But what do I know??? PS: Yep, I'm CCing to to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:39:10PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary > license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you > meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and > making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject the GPL; it grants > you permissions whether you want them or not. > > If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. If this is true, it's awful. That means that I can release some software for "free" under the GPL, wait until everyone is using it, and then suddenly say "Hey guys, guess what? I feel like getting rich--please all send me $5000 or stop using my software. I revoke the GPL." That CAN'T be right. If it is right, we need a quick revision to the GPL to fix this problem. Justin
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote: > Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly. > You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on > distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no > legal recourse for distribution. You can "accept" the GPL by exercising your rights under the GPL in accordance with its terms, or you can "reject" the GPL by not exercising your rights. But this is not acceptance as understood in discussing contracts. That would be like saying you "reject" your constitutional right of free speech by remaining silent. You still have your rights, you just aren't exercising them. And if what you want is to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire), your free speech rights will not help you. > If you choose to not accept the license, then you can't use the software. Definitely not true of GPLed software. You may not copy, distribute, or create derivative works except under the terms of the GPL. But you can use the software on one machine or many; you can study the software to determine how it does what it does, etc. etc. In this way the GPL is unlike proprietary licenses, where indeed you cannot use the software unless you have accepted the license (but under UCITA, using counts as accepting). > > If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of > > luck. > > Can a copyright owner revoke a license which has no 'revocation' clause? It > seems that other licenses, such as the APSL, were scrupulous in including > such a clause so as to be able to revoke the license. Sure. If I grant you bare permission to do something, with no reciprocal promise on your part, I can change my mind whenever I like, thus: "Here, use my carno, I lied. You can't." The previous license will not help you now. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote: > Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random > proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain > actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, > distributing, and making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject > the GPL; it grants you permissions whether you want them or not. Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly. You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no legal recourse for distribution. I haven't been following this discussion too closely (I have, in fact, made several attempts to unsubscribe per the directions sent to me when I subscribed), but regardless of whether a license is very restrictive, and regardless of whether the author of the license chooses to call it a "copyleft," it's a license granting rights over copyrighted material. If you choose to not accept the license, then you can't use the software. Of course, there's no reason to *not* accept the GPL, if you're not planning on doing any distribution or derivative works, since your use is not restricted. But it's still an option. > If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of > luck. Can a copyright owner revoke a license which has no 'revocation' clause? It seems that other licenses, such as the APSL, were scrupulous in including such a clause so as to be able to revoke the license. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thursday 30 March 2000, Nils Lohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chip Salzenberg writes: >>According to John Cowan: >>> Chip Salzenberg wrote: >>> > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. >>> >>> A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely >>> revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if >>> the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a >>> trespasser. >> >>*shock* *dismay* >> >>I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' > >This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is >changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? No. If you buy the software, there's a contract, and that contract is binding. It's only if you get the software completely free, without having to give anything (valuable) away for it that there is no contract, because a contract requires a valuable consideration from both parties. Though ISTR that some European legal systems do recognise the existence of gratuitous contracts, so the Frenchmen in the audience may be safe(r). Don't count on it though - IANAL... > I would argue that I >should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never >had a chance to acept or reject the other license. If Mattel change the licence, you aren't necessarily bound by the new licence - you can choose to destroy your copies of the software and walk away. Indeed, it doesn't seem likely that Mattel will be licencing this particular bit of software at all :-). Richard.
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Nils Lohner wrote: > This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is > changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? I would argue that I > should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never > had a chance to acept or reject the other license. Use your imagination to > add some fun clauses to new license :) Somehow this does not seem logical, > reasonable, etc. Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject the GPL; it grants you permissions whether you want them or not. If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Nils Lohner: > This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license > is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? No, no, you've confused license with contract. If you buy the software, then there is an exchange of considerations, so there is a (sale) contract involved, and all the rules change. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely > > revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if > > the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a > > trespasser. > I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' IANAL, but there's always the possibility of a court ruling that recipients of GPL software are providing consideration, so it's a contract. If you distribute a binary, the consideration might be that you distribute the source. Putting one's own code under GPL if linked with GPL might also be consideration--I don't think consideration has to directly benefit the original copyright owner to count as consideration. The FSF really should get involved in this, because the implications of this question are obviously pretty big.
Re: loophole in the GPL?
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:56:54PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Mmmm, I think you're glossing over what "your copy" means here. I imagine > that you're referring to the "first sale" doctrine, which restricts the > ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that they > sell_. First sale does not restrict the ability of copyright holders to > restrict resale of copies _that other people make_. OK, that's the answer I was looking for. So, why can't book sellers restrict the resale of books by selling a copy to a distributor, and letting the distributor make the copies that are sold to the public? Justin
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chip Salzenberg writes: >According to John Cowan: >> Chip Salzenberg wrote: >> > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. >> >> A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely >> revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if >> the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a >> trespasser. > >*shock* *dismay* > >I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? I would argue that I should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never had a chance to acept or reject the other license. Use your imagination to add some fun clauses to new license :) Somehow this does not seem logical, reasonable, etc. Nils.
Re: loophole in the GPL?
Justin Wells writes: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is > > used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but > > is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work > > to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or > > lending". So selling copies is a type, indeed the primary type, > > of distribution. > > However, I thought it was well established that a copyright license > CANNOT prevent you from selling your copy of a copyrighted work. Mmmm, I think you're glossing over what "your copy" means here. I imagine that you're referring to the "first sale" doctrine, which restricts the ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that they sell_. First sale does not restrict the ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that other people make_. > Once you have legally acquired a copy, you CAN sell it. That would be neat, because then you could make "fair use" copies for yourself, and then they would be legal, so you could sell them. The people you sold them to would then have legal copies, so they could make fair use copies, and then those copies would be legal, too, and they could sell them... This would be neat, but I don't think copyright law quite works that way. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: loophole in the GPL?
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is > used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but > is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work > to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or > lending". So selling copies is a type, indeed the primary type, > of distribution. However, I thought it was well established that a copyright license CANNOT prevent you from selling your copy of a copyrighted work. So that would indicate that copyright law cannot be used to prevent this form of distribution, no matter what the GPL claims to the contrary. Once you have legally acquired a copy, you CAN sell it. Justin
RE: Wired Article -- Nullifying a GPL?
I looked at what I could find on Wired, thanks to the Slashdot discussion and its links. 1. UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS? One problem I notice is that we don't have a finding with regard to the validity of the copyright by the original distributors of cphack. Part of the Mattel claim was that this work was the product of an infringement. I gather that the parties have settled, but I don't know what has been stipulated concerning the validity of the cphack copyright and therefore any purported licensing of it. The cited property transfer is prudently noncommittal on that score. I would say that leaves much of the "fiasco" in place, depending on what the judge makes of all of this. I have neither information nor further opinion about the actual case. 2. HEY BUDDY, WANNA BUY A WATCH? GENUINE ROLEX! I do see an interesting question over what happens when any published work is tainted by a problem over the ownership of the intellectual property embodied therein. I've never heard of anything that will insulate a recipient of software from the consequences of that material not being the property of the supplier/license-writer. I've seen contracts that held a purchaser harmless from any intellectual property issue, but they were written by suppliers who could be reasonably counted on to perform, and the monetary considerations were considerable (e.g., purchase of large mainframe computer systems). I don't notice anything about that in the 7-page software EULA I happen to have in front of me. I do notice that section 7 of the GPL (Version 2, June 1991) does have language which may be pertinent and which may have bearing in the Mattel-cphack case too. The outcomes tend to be limited to what is practical. But willful redistribution of a tainted work (e.g., copies of a believed-to-be-pirated audio recording or electronic novel) is not smart behavior, any more than is quickly reselling an automobile that you purchased with the strong suspicion that it was stolen. Or hastily spending that $20 bill you were given that you are pretty sure is counterfeit. So, "do you feel lucky, ...?" I have no basis for determining or assuming that the GPL-ing of cphack has been nullified or made void. I do think we are seeing an area where trustworthy sources become important. In particular, the presence (or in this case, simple mention) of the GPL in material, as for any license, depends for its authority on the legitimacy of the claim of property right on which the license is founded. Of course, we will trust these things. But I think it is important to understand that it is all about trust relationships. Sometimes, these don't work out, and we are left with a challenge to behave responsibly and diligently. -- Dennis -Original Message- From: Chip Salzenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chip Salzenberg Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:16 To: W . Yip Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL According to W . Yip: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:49:49 -0800, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their > >right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that > >right, the original authors are not able to transfer it. > > Mattel's lawyers would certainly disagree with you on this one. They > probably would stand by their contract and claim that copyright has been > assigned to them. Oh, I won't argue that point. Mattel certainly owns the copyright. But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. Frankly, I'm stunned that Mattel is even bringing this argument. They (or the department in question) must be in a full-blown panic. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: loophole in the GPL?
Justin Wells wrote: > The GPL says that if I "distribute" copies then I must provide source. I, > however, maintain that I am doing no such thing--I am *selling* copies, > transfering my ownership of that copy to someone else, not distributing > them. The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". So selling copies is a type, indeed the primary type, of distribution. This argument also fails the "laugh test"; if your argument makes the judge laugh (derisively), don't expect a decision in your favor. "How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg?" "Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one." --Abraham Lincoln -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to John Cowan: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. > > A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely > revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if > the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a > trespasser. *shock* *dismay* I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
loophole in the GPL?
I'm sure it's not, but someone please explain to me why not. If the GPL is just a grant under copyright law, and not a contract, then why can't I do the following: -- I get a copy of a GPL'd work called "SSP" (some software program) -- I am legally entitled to make private derivative copies of such a work, and I am the owner of those copies. So I make some changes to the work, and then I compile it, producing a binary. -- The binary is a copy which I am legally entitled to own, and I have the implicit right, under copyright law, to sell any copy of a work I own to someone else--nobody can take this right from me. -- I sell you the binary copy, without giving you the source code. The GPL is not allowed to prevent me from selling to you the copy of the binary which I legally own. -- I make lots of these copies and sell them to lots of people, never giving anyone the source. The GPL says that if I "distribute" copies then I must provide source. I, however, maintain that I am doing no such thing--I am *selling* copies, transfering my ownership of that copy to someone else, not distributing them. This wouldn't work if the GPL forbade me from making my own private derivations and privately copying them. But I don't think it forbids this: it lets me privately do whatever I like. And once I've privately made a derivative, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to sell it, since copyright law insists that i have the right to sell any copy in my posession. Justin
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Chip Salzenberg wrote: > But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a > license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns > have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to > the code, not the author. Not obvious, probably not true. Licenses are personal, in general, and a license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a trespasser. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to W . Yip: > A purchaser, particularly a bona fide one, may not know anything > about the licenses attached to a copyright which he is purchasing, > and thus deserves protection from copyright holders who may be > dishonest. Surely, though, that theory doesn't help Mattel -- they *did* know about the free distribution license of cphack. It was what drew their attention in the first place! -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Mark Wielaard: > But the main document (the actual essay cp4break.html) says: > "The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it." > "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you > see fit." Well, that about wraps it up for Mattel. Or it should, anyway. :-( -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to W . Yip: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:49:49 -0800, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their > >right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that > >right, the original authors are not able to transfer it. > > Mattel's lawyers would certainly disagree with you on this one. They > probably would stand by their contract and claim that copyright has been > assigned to them. Oh, I won't argue that point. Mattel certainly owns the copyright. But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. Frankly, I'm stunned that Mattel is even bringing this argument. They (or the department in question) must be in a full-blown panic. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL - Signed Licenses?
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > I notice that the EULA I am looking at right now is not "signed" although I > have every reason to believe that it is authentic. The statutory requirement applies to copyright licenses, which the GPL is but the EULA is not. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Two license questions
Richard Bondi wrote: > 1) I think this belongs on an FAQ at www.opensource.org: if I use one of > the approved licenses, can I rename it? I'm going to use the Ricoh license > for my book's code; can I call it the Wiley Open Source Public License > everywhere? Nobody is likely to sue you. The GPL and MPL make explicit provisions for doing this, and the MIT/BSD and Artistic Licenses have been used this way forever. I wouldn't worry about it. You might want to call it the "Bondi Open Source Public License", though, as Wiley might not appreciate your taking their name in vain. > 2) My publisher is very confused about whether they should replace their > standard CD software statement with the Ricoh license, or put both on the > page facing the CD. Their standard license probably incorporates the Ricoh license by reference, since it speaks of "using the software as described in the software and the accompanying book", so if your license is present in either place you are probably OK. Nevertheless it will confuse people and should be heaved out. > Do they contradict each other because the Wiley > statement says "All rights reserved"? What confuses me is that the Ricoh > license's Exhibit says "All Rights Reserved:" doesn't it actually grant a > ton of rights?!! No and yes, respectively. It used to be that a notice of copyright (the thing that says "Copyright 2000 so-and-so") wasn't effective in some countries without the magic words "All Rights Reserved", whether those rights were then licensed to anyone or not. This is no longer true anywhere (I think) but publishers insert it out of habit. It has no effect on your license. Disclaimer: IANAL. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
RE: Wired Article on the GPL - Signed Licenses?
Although we are getting far afield from the structure of open-source licenses, there seem to be some procedural and technical steps someone could take to ensure that a license is perpetuated, especially for digitally-conveyed works and licenses to those works. There are moves afoot to establish the legal acceptability of digital signatures and their non-repudiation qualities. I don't want to substitute technology for common sense, but this does seem to promise a way to be clear what (1) the licensed work is, and (2) the authenticity of the license (or even notice). It might even provide a mechanism for "affixing" a license to a copy of the work even though the elements are physically separated. A. USING DIGITAL SIGNATURES TO CONVEY LICENSES It is interesting that employing digital signatures to establish the authenticity of open-source distributions is already on the rise. Here is what I noticed: 1. If I provide a license statement in digital form, which is digitally signed, a recipient can confirm whether the license has indeed been signed according to an accompanying certificate, and whether the document is unaltered. That establishes signature and that the license is a true copy of the signed material. Then the "usual" mechanisms come into play with regard to determining whether (a) the signature is authentic and can be trusted and is indeed non-repudiatable and (b) whether I have the right to convey such a license, signed or not. [That is, we are in the same place that we are with conventional written instruments.] 2. I can, as part of the signed license document, provide certificate information that is usable to confirm signatures on the digital copies of the covered works themselves. These can be incorporated in the signed material of (1), and be an intrinsic part of the signed material. I see some weaknesses in this step, but no more so than with the EULA I have in front of me pertaining to a massive amount of software that I just installed on my development computer. 3. Various secure repository (certificate authority) mechanisms are used to establish the provenance of a digital certificate of particular quality. Along with this, there can be deposit mechanisms for licenses (just as there is or at least was a way to record copyright assignments for registered copyrights). It would be valuable to have a repository where licenses could be recorded/deposited so that someone researching the status of a copyright and its assignments/licenses could find them. I don't know that the U.S. Copyright Office would be particularly happy to provide that, but who knows. It would certainly depend on having registered the copyright, though. 4. Digital signature techniques are being used to provide more confidence in the authenticity and provenance of digital material, permitting trust against substitution of altered or counterfeit works that may be dangerous to users of the work. They also provide a level of commitment by an authentic signer that the work (including the license) is not repudiatable. None of these provisions prevent someone from forging a work or making fraudulent exclusive transfers. It is just harder to do it without incriminating oneself. It also depends on due diligence on the part of recipients of such materials. B. EARTH TO DENNIS, EARTH TO DENNIS ... I notice that the EULA I am looking at right now is not "signed" although I have every reason to believe that it is authentic. The box within which the software was packed even had an affixed "certificate of authenticity," and I guess I should retain that with my EULA, the CD-ROMS, the CD-ROM "key," and the proof-of-purchase. I purchased the software over the Internet. I have registered myself as the purchaser using the on-line mechanism provided as part of the software installation process. I suspect that's quite enough for me and the software vendor, either one, to establish the likelihood that I have purchased their software and that I am a party to the accompanying EULA, which I also recall "clicking-through" as part of the software installation process. I can't imagine what either of us might do that would have this be in dispute. I will hold onto the materials anyhow. I also notice that there are a number of digital certificates included in the software collection. Although a number of them have expired (that is a problem with these things), I have strong reason to believe that they are authentic. -- Dennis -- Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com -Original Message- From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 04:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL [ ... ] >--- >USC 17 205 E >(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive >License. - A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thursday 30 March 2000, W. Yip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:47:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >>But it turns out that that's not what they meant. The Wired article is just >>written poorly. Someone on Slashdot quoted the actual law that they *were* >>referring to: > >Having gone through the following, I still fail to see how FSF fits into >the picture. Was wired.com merely doing some publicity for FSF? > >>--- >>USC 17 205 E >>(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive >>License. - A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a >>conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a >>written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's >>duly authorized agent, and if - >>(1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or >>(2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer >>and without notice of it. >>--- IANAL, but from an English perspective, there's nothing in that paragraph that says that an informal nonexclusive licence shouldn't take priority over a later, formal transfer. In the absence of the condition in the clause holding that, the court can make up its own mind. >>That *could* mean that if there is a signed contract, then the GPL takes >>priority--and conversely, if there wasn't a signed contract, then Mattel's >>ownership takes priority. > >The above makes sense. *Imagine* Microsoft being bought by XXX company >tomorrow. You do not want to have your license to Windows being revoked >would you (really) ? Microsoft couldn't do that anyway: they can't exclusively sell to XXX rights they have already contracted away to you - this is just a case of selling something twice, and XXX will just have to sue Microsoft for it. By analogy, if I (M) sold you (A) a car, then sold the same car to B, B would have the right to sue me for the cost he paid for the car that was owned by you. He wouldn't have the right to sue you for delivery up of the car. That argument, I think, will work (in the sense of not being fatally flawed) provided US law treats IP rights as property - UK law does, but I don't know what US law does in this situation. Also, the UK has no such provision, so the GPL should take precedence. [snip] >>From what you have quoted, the USC 17 205 does *not* address the rub of the >GPL situation, which is about a recurring 'chain of licenses'. It is this >element involving unlimited distribution which Mattel aims to stop. Quite. Unfortunately, from the GPL : - > 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's >source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you >conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate >copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the >notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; >and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License >along with the Program. And section 4 goes in the same vein: rights are granted to you to grant rights to others - the rights do not flow directly from the authors, so I don't see how Mattel can attack the chain of distribution. > >The USC 17 205 only seems to address the single license, from one >individual to another. Again, I don't know about US law, but I don't believe there's anything in English law which distinguishes a licence allowing sublicencing. [snip] >>It's still a little strained to interpret it that way. It doesn't say outright >>what happens without a signed contract, so it might only mean that it doesn't >>*automatically* prevail without one, not that it can't prevail at all. > >I think it safe to assume that in absence of a 'written instrument' a >license is exhausted by the act of copyright transfer. Why ? >This is because, >without a 'written instrument' the license is almost certainly a bare >license - ie. plain permission. One cannot claim permission to an article >subsists even after ownership of the article has passed. I don't see why: contracts can perfectly happily be informal. The big problem, AFAICS, is going to be consideration: I'm not sure a court will buy the idea of fame as a consideration, unless (1) there's precedent, or (2) it really wants to. Other than that, since the GPL doesn't provide any obligations more binding than those you would have to adhere to anyway if you didn't accept it, I don't see how there can be consideration. Now, if you were to modify the GPL so that you agreed to jump up and down twice every Thursday, that might make it a contract. If you were feeling audacious, you could argue that the lack of warranty makes consideration - that there would be an implied warranty if you used the software indirectly, without agreeing to the GPL (for example, by visiting a website using the software), and that
Two license questions
Dear All, My book will be my publisher's first to include open source licensed code. (The book is "Cryptography for Visual Basic: A Programmer's Guide to the Microsoft CryptoAPI", and includes open source COM wrappers for the CryptoAPI.) Can someone help me with the following questions please? 1) I think this belongs on an FAQ at www.opensource.org: if I use one of the approved licenses, can I rename it? I'm going to use the Ricoh license for my book's code; can I call it the Wiley Open Source Public License everywhere? 2) My publisher is very confused about whether they should replace their standard CD software statement with the Ricoh license, or put both on the page facing the CD. Do they contradict each other because the Wiley statement says "All rights reserved"? What confuses me is that the Ricoh license's Exhibit says "All Rights Reserved:" doesn't it actually grant a ton of rights?!! Here's the old Wiley statement: CUSTOMER NOTE: IF THIS BOOK IS ACCOMPANIED BY SOFTWARE, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE OPENING THE PACKAGE.This software contains files to help you utilize the models described in the accompanying book. By opening the package, you are agreeing to be bound by the following agreement: This software product is protected by copyright and all rights are reserved by the author, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or their licensors. You are licensed to use this software as described in the software and the accompanying book. Copying the software for any other purpose may be a violation of the U.S. Copyright Law.This software product is sold as is without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Neither Wiley nor its dealers or distributors assumes any liability for any alleged or actual damages arising from the use of or the inability to use this software. (Some states do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the exclusion may not apply to you.) TIA for your help! Richard Bondi
Re: The position RMS takes...
"W. Yip" wrote:
> Just so as to ensure we are on the same wavelength, my understanding of
> what is an 'exclusive license' is that '...with an exclusive license, the
> licensee is given the right to perform specified acts to the exclusion of
> all others *including the (copyright owner)'* [1]
The U.S. Copyright Act, at least, uses the term "transfer of copyright"
for this case. So there are transfers of copyright (former copyright owner
retains no interest), which must be in writing and should be recorded at
the Copyright Office; and there are copyright licenses, which need no writing
and are not recorded there.
> I believe M$ licenses to be non-exclusive.
They are certainly non-exclusive. But my point is that Microsoft EULAs are
not *copyright* licenses. They grant none of the rights of a copyright owner.
They are instead analogous to the contract of sale by which one buys a book
or other copyrighted work; you get the object but not any part of the
copyright rights. The EULA, however, is more restrictive than a typical
book-sale contract: it severely limits what you can do with the program.
> >The GNU GPL, however, is a non-exclusive copyright license; as such,
> >no one but the copyright owner can issue it, so there are no sublicenses.
> >However, since the GPL is a general permission to everyone, there is no
> >need for any sublicensing either.
>
> When a licensee releases a derivate work under the GPL, is this not an act
> of sublicensing?
No. Suppose that Alice issues an original work under the GPL. Bob then issues
a derivative of Alice's work, necessarily also under the GPL. Carol gets a copy
of Bob's work.
Carol receives a license from Bob for the derivative work, and also for Bob's
original contributions (supposing that they are of sufficient originality, etc.
to be copyrightable). She also receives a license from Alice.
When Alice licensed the work under the GPL, she said that anyone in Carol's
position would receive a license to the work. If Alice tried to renege by
suing Carol for infringement, Carol could rely in good faith on the GPL.
Until the judge says no, that is. Lawyers are fond of saying that the
law is whatever the judge says; but this does not help judges much, who
are sworn to do justice according to the law.
> Yes. But disclaimers are generally not always effective to remove liability
> in the courts. I'd say the terms of the contract and the general intent of
> the document would be the main determinant as to liability in such cases.
Fair enough. AFAIK no one has ever won a warranty-of-fitness lawsuit
against a software developer in this country. Anyone know of a case?
"If builders built buildings the way some programmers write programs, then
the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
--Gerald Weinberg
> >> There are two possibilities to the 'automatic license'. The license either
> >> (in a case where A[copyright holder] licenses to B licenses to C)
> >> (i) automatically issues from the licensee(B) to the sublicensee(C)
> >> (ii) automatically issues from the licensor (A) to the sublicensee (C)
> >Has to be (ii) for a non-exclusive copyright license, since B can't
> >license anything by way of copyright.
>
> But doesn't B own the copyright to the 'bits' of the derivative work, ie.
> his own additions to the source code?
Provided they amount to an original work of authorship (they have to pass
the originality test and the form/content merger test, at least over here), yes.
But I was considering the case where B merely distributes A's work unchanged.
> >A is the copyright owner, the only one who can issue such a license.
> >The GPL, when adopted by A as a license for his copyright property, says
> >that C gets such a license.
>
> Your position here seems to be
>
> 'What the GPL wants, the GPL gets'.
>
> The reality is that the situation still depends on what a judge makes of
> the GPL.
Other than in a case like the Mattel case, where the copyright owner did not
issue the GPL, this is unlikely to occur. The genuine ground of dispute
between A and C would be whether C complied in good faith with the GPL's
terms. For typical Cs, there is simply no issue, since they merely use
A's program without copying, distributing, or making derivative works.
> Concurrent licenses:
>
> A --> C ('automatic')
>
> B --> C (sublicensing a derivative work?)
Merely licensing it. Copyright in the derivative work as a whole belongs to B,
not merely copyright in the changes (which may not even exist).
If the original work was under the GPL, of course, B cannot distribute his
derivative work (which necessarily includes the original) except under the
GPL.
> >Distribution that violates the condition is infringing. Since you
> >don't like my previous example, suppose I license you to distribute
> >my book, on condition that you include an erratum slip with it.
> >Distribution without the erratum slip would be infringing.
>
> Yes. T
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:47:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But it turns out that that's not what they meant. The Wired article is just >written poorly. Someone on Slashdot quoted the actual law that they *were* >referring to: Having gone through the following, I still fail to see how FSF fits into the picture. Was wired.com merely doing some publicity for FSF? >--- >USC 17 205 E >(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive >License. - A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a >conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a >written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's >duly authorized agent, and if - >(1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or >(2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer >and without notice of it. >--- >That *could* mean that if there is a signed contract, then the GPL takes >priority--and conversely, if there wasn't a signed contract, then Mattel's >ownership takes priority. The above makes sense. *Imagine* Microsoft being bought by XXX company tomorrow. You do not want to have your license to Windows being revoked would you (really) ? I would presume Mattel, being a big corp, will have the sense to get a signature when they buy something. >From what you have quoted, the USC 17 205 does *not* address the rub of the GPL situation, which is about a recurring 'chain of licenses'. It is this element involving unlimited distribution which Mattel aims to stop. The USC 17 205 only seems to address the single license, from one individual to another. >It's still a little strained to interpret it that way. It doesn't say outright >what happens without a signed contract, so it might only mean that it doesn't >*automatically* prevail without one, not that it can't prevail at all. I think it safe to assume that in absence of a 'written instrument' a license is exhausted by the act of copyright transfer. This is because, without a 'written instrument' the license is almost certainly a bare license - ie. plain permission. One cannot claim permission to an article subsists even after ownership of the article has passed. Again, when we superimpose UCITA mandating that every license is a contract, then this becomes problemmatic, since a contractual license cannot be plain permission. I accept your point that the USC provision is silent on what happens in absence of a signed contract. However, the odds would certainly weigh against the GPL in such a case where Mattel is actively seeking to assert its exclusive rights of copyright ownership. > Also, >if you interpret the law that way, you come up with the absurd conclusion that >the initial copyright owner might be unable to revoke the license, but if he >transfers the license to someone else that other party can do what he can't. This might not be absurb because the initial copyright owner would be the one who voluntarily chose this particular course of action (GPL), and so we can argue he ought not be allowed to renege from it. OTOH, a purchaser, particularly a bona fide one, may not know anything about the licenses attached to a copyright which he is purchasing, and thus deserves protection from copyright holders who may be dishonest.
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:50:02 +1000, Andrew J Bromage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Is it too late to grab a copy of cphack now? Will I or won't I be able >to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if >they _do_ revoke the GPL on cphack if I've obtained my copy after the >lawsuit was filed? And are my chances better or worse living in a >country where we don't have a UCITA? Class action for *contract* ? Do I see another issue spawned by the unholy marriage between UCITA and GPL? Conventionally, class actions are precluded from contract due to privity. Only those who are parties to a contract can have standing to sue. The problem with the UCITA turning every software license into a contract is to give everyone who is a software licensee the necessary standing to sue? This seems to result in a 'class action' since a GPL is so easy to obtain!
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:49:49 -0800, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their >right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that >right, the original authors are not able to transfer it. Mattel's lawyers would certainly disagree with you on this one. They probably would stand by their contract and claim that copyright has been assigned to them. In any event, the moot point here seems to be, in a nice metaphor, whether license terms can overpower the nature of copyright, and how contractual elements influence this. This directly affects the issue whether adopting the GPL is to be equated with 'surrendering the right to control GPL-compatible copying (and distribution)'. >I seems to me that M has just paid money (a lot of money? I dunno) >for the IP equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge. [1] All they really >purchased was the ability to create a prioprietary fork. Apparently, this Brooklyn Bridge was sold for a single Canadian Dollar. A nice summary to all the facts is in http://www.cnn.com/2000/tech/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/index.html cheers
