Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050519 19:52]:
> Moral rights only allow you to act against mutilation of
> the work and lack of proper attribution. And you have the right
> to decide on _first_ publication. But once you publish, the
> work is on the market and your rights are exhausted. I don't see
> a basis for doing a recall.

INAL, but German law also has some revocation paragraphs:

The German copyright laws, called something line "author rights law" 
Urheberrechtsgesetz (e.g. http://www.netlaw.de/gesetze/urhg.htm)
has paragraphs about revocation:

§41 Rückrufsrecht wegen Nichtausübung
which could be translated to "revocation right because of non-use",
which is quite uninteresting. It mainly allows to terminate rights
when you give exclusive rights and the person makes no use of it.

§42 Rückrufsrecht wegen gewandelter Überzeugung 
This could be translated as "revocation right because of changed
opinion/belief".
For free software it is not very applicaple in my eyes, as the
law mandates in that case:
- the author has to compensate adaquately
- the revocation is not active before compensation is payed.
- the licensee has three months to name the amount of compensation
- if the work is to be used again, the former licensee has to 
  be offered equivalent rights under fair conditions.

So this seems to be mainly for things like pictures or other art the
artist wished he never made. Compensating every user, even if only the
costs for downloading are compensated, would be far to expensive.
Also note that as far as I was explained, the author is always the
person who made it. Author's rights are not refereable. The nearest
equivalent of copyright transference are exclusive licenses. And as
these "morale rights" are considered part of human rights, they are
not transferable and not bounding contracts about their use can be made.

Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip Raul's honest and polite response]
> I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been
> making.  In other words, I see you asserting that things which are
> sometimes true must always be true.
> 
> In the case of the "contract" issue -- I've been arguing that it's
> not always the case that the law will rely solely on contract law.
> I've not been arguing that contract law would never apply.

I believe it to be the case that contract law is the only basis on
which the text of the GPL has any significance whatsoever in any
jurisdiction I have heard spoken of, except that some jurisdictions
may also apply doctrines of estoppel, reliance, etc. against the FSF
and other GPL licensors in tort proceedings.  An action for copyright
infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
through the lens of contract law.  IANAL, TINLA.  I don't believe you
have succeeded in providing any evidence to the contrary.

> In my opinion, an assertion that contract law would never apply
> would involve the same kind of over generalization as an assertion
> that contract law must always apply.

Contract law (or its equivalent in a civil law system) always applies
to offers of contract; that's kind of tautological.  And the GPL has
no legal significance as anything other than an offer of contract,
except perhaps as a public statement by the FSF and hence conceivably
as grounds for estoppel.

> I have been convinced, over the last week, that within the U.S.,
> contract law will almost always apply.  I think there is a basis
> even in U.S. law for other kinds of legal action, but I think that
> you're much more likely to find examples in international law
> than in U.S. law.

People with actual legal qualifications in continental Europe and in
Brazil, as well as other laymen who read and cite law, have weighed in
on this one.  While they are less prolix than I, they seem to be no
less certain as to the offer-of-contract nature of the GPL.  Have you
any more evidence to adduce in opposition?

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Thanks, Roberto.  The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
fact still in the current FAQ, I just missed it:

( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL )

... The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free
software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit
what data you use the interpreter on.

But you are quite right to provide the "philosophy" link, since that's
the one that (IMHO, IANAL) goes way over the top:


Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are
limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright.
If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described
above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never
anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free
software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a
much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many
possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and
non-free.

We can't possibly list all the possible contract restrictions that
would be unacceptable. If a contract-based license restricts the user
in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which
isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it,
and we will probably decide it is non-free.


This text is still present in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html .

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Raul Miller]

On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps that is indeed what you would do.  I don't consider lawyers to
> be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves.  They
> are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
> and legal representation, but that's a whole 'nother animal.

In a sense, it's that ability to offer legal advice which I was
talking about.

In any event, I'd consider going to a lawyer as better than
listening to someone else reading the law for themselves.

> Happily, the public record is not limited to websites under the FSF's
> control.  Google Eben Moglen for the text of various interviews, and
> read his statements (especially paragraph 18) in
> http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html -- or Google's cached
> copy, if that URL mysteriously stops working.

Are you talking about point18?  It's pretty clear that 18 refers to
people who are not engaged in copying or distributing.
There are no terms in the GPL which impose any contractual
obligations in those cases.

(Though it is the case that if someone is distributing a work
illegally, that a person could receive work which supposedly
has been released under the GPL but where parts of it aren't
legal for further distribution.)

> > I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that
> > copyright law is somehow important to understanding the
> > GPL.
> 
> Presumably this bit of grandstanding is meant for the benefit of any
> reader who doesn't know that you and I have been spamming debian-legal
> (and on and off debian-devel) with this debate for months, and hence
> you can guess a great deal more than that.

Well... if I thought I understood what your points were, I'd probably
be in better shape here.  For the most parts, I'm hung up on what
appear to me to be gross leaps of illogic, and I'm reduced to guessing
about what your points are.

> > I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what
> > you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions
> > which do not appear in the FAQ.
> 
> Yeah, right.  Like you haven't been arguing strenuously for months
> that the GPL is not an offer of contract.  I am starting to question
> your sincerity again.

I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been
making.  In other words, I see you asserting that things which are
sometimes true must always be true.

In the case of the "contract" issue -- I've been arguing that it's
not always the case that the law will rely solely on contract law.
I've not been arguing that contract law would never apply.

In my opinion, an assertion that contract law would never apply
would involve the same kind of over generalization as an assertion
that contract law must always apply.

I have been convinced, over the last week, that within the U.S.,
contract law will almost always apply.  I think there is a basis
even in U.S. law for other kinds of legal action, but I think that
you're much more likely to find examples in international law
than in U.S. law.

-- 
Raul

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> not.  Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ?
> 

>From 11-2004:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> > >
> > > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> > > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than
> > > professional advice).
> 
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
> > published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
> > inquiries.
> 
> And if you have retained counsel of your own, I'd let your
> lawyer deal with that.  If you haven't, then my "interesting
> commentary" comment is irrelevant.

Perhaps that is indeed what you would do.  I don't consider lawyers to
be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves.  They
are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
and legal representation, but that's a whole 'nother animal.

> > Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
> > that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction
> > for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the
> > assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an
> > ordinary offer of contract.  That may yet become a problem for him
> > personally as well as for the FSF.
> 
> I don't find in the GPL FAQ any assertion that the GPL is not
> to be considered an agreement under contract law.

Very, very interesting.  The grossly erroneous conclusions are there
(including various statements about run-time use that are false in the
US in light of 17 USC 117, and false for other reasons in many other
jurisdictions), but the "GPL is a creature of copyright law" bit is
not.  Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ?

Happily, the public record is not limited to websites under the FSF's
control.  Google Eben Moglen for the text of various interviews, and
read his statements (especially paragraph 18) in
http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html -- or Google's cached
copy, if that URL mysteriously stops working.

> I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that
> copyright law is somehow important to understanding the
> GPL.

Presumably this bit of grandstanding is meant for the benefit of any
reader who doesn't know that you and I have been spamming debian-legal
(and on and off debian-devel) with this debate for months, and hence
you can guess a great deal more than that.

> I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what
> you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions
> which do not appear in the FAQ.

Yeah, right.  Like you haven't been arguing strenuously for months
that the GPL is not an offer of contract.  I am starting to question
your sincerity again.

- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Raul Miller]

> > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> >
> > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than
> > professional advice).

On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
> published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
> inquiries.

And if you have retained counsel of your own, I'd let your
lawyer deal with that.  If you haven't, then my "interesting
commentary" comment is irrelevant.

> Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
> that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction
> for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the
> assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an
> ordinary offer of contract.  That may yet become a problem for him
> personally as well as for the FSF.

I don't find in the GPL FAQ any assertion that the GPL is not
to be considered an agreement under contract law.

I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that
copyright law is somehow important to understanding the
GPL.

I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what
you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions
which do not appear in the FAQ.

-- 
Raul

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> > believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> > the "FSF FAQ".
> 
> For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> 
> It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than
> professional advice).

The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
inquiries.  Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction
for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the
assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an
ordinary offer of contract.  That may yet become a problem for him
personally as well as for the FSF.

This is not a "fine point of law", it is first-year law student stuff
that anyone with a modicum of familiarity with legalese can easily
verify for himself or herself by the use of two law references (Nimmer
on Copyright and Corbin on Contracts) found in every law library in
the US.  These law references are probably also available from most
law libraries in any English-speaking country and the bigger ones
anywhere in the world, as are their equivalents for other national
implementations.  The fact that all licenses are (terms in) contracts
is also blatantly obvious from a few hours' perusal of the primary
literature -- statute and appellate case law -- which is available for
free through www.findlaw.com.  Don't believe me; look it up for
yourself.

> Furthermore, that FAQ is far and away better than anything
> you've proposed.

If that is a challenge to produce an adequate summary of my writings
to date on the topic, I think I'll take it up, in my own sweet time. 
It won't be legal advice (IANAL), but it will be firmly grounded in
the applicable law to the best of my ability, which is a hell of a lot
more than you can say for the FSF FAQ.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Raul Miller]

On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> the "FSF FAQ". 

For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".

It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than
professional advice).

Furthermore, that FAQ is far and away better than anything
you've proposed.

-- 
Raul

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Point taken.  However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
> section 6:
> 
>   6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
> this License.
> 
> To me, that says "Once the cat is out, it's out for good."  So,
> if you as the author of GPL software, try to restrict someone that
> has already received your software under the terms of the GPL, then
> you violate the license.  Since you are the author, it doesn't
> affect you so much, since you are also the copyright holder.

And what, exactly, is the licensee's recourse if the licensor
"violates the license" in this way?  Are you mistaking the GPL for a
statute?

The law about whether a license without an explicit term can be
revoked at will varies from one contract law jurisdiction to another. 
See Walthal v. Corey Rusk at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/981659.html -- and
observe that appeals courts sometimes screw up too (note the scathing
commentary regarding the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Rano v. Sipa
Press).  Even in the Ninth, you probably wouldn't want to be using
Rano as a central part of the argument in a case today.

> The only other alternative is that the GPL is not enforceable.
> That would probably call into question the validity of all software
> licenses.  However, I am not lawyer (I'm sure you guessed that by
> now), so I will refrain from speaking further on this subject.

IANAL either, but this sweeping statement is obviously nonsense.  The
typical EULA is a dog's breakfast of enforceable and unenforceable
constraints, but there's getting to be quite a bit of statute and case
law about how to construe a EULA under any given jurisdiction's
contract law.  A court of fact's analysis of the GPL terms would in
any case have no value as precedent in a later court of fact where
some EULA (or for that matter the GPL) is under discussion.

The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the "FSF FAQ".  Yet in many ways the actual GPL text, properly
construed, is sounder than the typical EULA.  I don't believe that it
bans all of the things that the FSF says it does (notably dynamic
linking GPL and non-GPL code).  But the only thing I can see that
might jeopardize its validity with respect to real derivative works is
the difficulty of construing a legitimate implementation of that
"automatically receives" language in Section 6, which a court would
have to construe in terms of conventional rules of agency to
sub-license.

> Incidentally, if there was so much controversy about this and the
> origins and rights to the code have been in question, why has
> SourceForge let the project continue for 2 years?  I imagine that
> it is not their responsibility that to comb through every piece
> of code housed on their servers.  However, I would imagine that
> it would be part of their due diligence to verify whether a project
> like this can even exist on their servers in the first place.

SourceForge is not the tightest run ship on the planet.  They are
probably not protected by any kind of "common carrier" exemption, but
they also probably figure they can wait until they get a "cease and
desist" letter.  In the real world, most violations of the law go
unpunished unless they involve major bodily harm, justify a claim for
large monetary damages, run afoul of the ascendant political agenda,
or really piss someone off.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Batist Paklons]

On 19/05/05, Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): "The following
> un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring
> the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral
> convictions, after a payment of damages to the holders of exploitation
> rights".

Seems like Spanish law is a bit on the wrong here. This goes directly
against the freedom of goods enshrined in art. 28 et seq. EU treaty.
As soon as a work is rightfully released on the market, the author
looses every economic right he has to ensure the free flow of goods on
the internal market.

check out 
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML
art.4 (c)

Not that you can do anything against that law, but in a litigation it
is a rightful defense.

Kind regards
Batist

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Jacobo Tarrio]

O Xoves, 19 de Maio de 2005 ás 19:52:28 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía:

> That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you
> tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is?

 Please, next time just say directly "that's not so" and it'll be easier on
my health. Thanks.

 And that's not so, true. I hadn't gotten it right the first time, and I
won't say "EU" now.

 Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): "The following
un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring
the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral
convictions, after a payment of damages to the holders of exploitation
rights".

 I said that the translation was ugly.

 So scrap my previous e-mail.

-- 
   Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O M?rcores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ?s 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escrib?a:
> > That is completely not possible.  Once you offer (and someone accepts)
> > code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
> > *that* code under the GPL.  About the only thing that can be done is
> 
>  Assuming that EU laws aren't involved, which allow the author to take all
> copies of their work out of circulation (but the laws, or at least Spanish
> law, also say that the author must pay damages, and if they decide to return
> the work to the "market", it must be under "reasonably similar" conditions).

That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you
tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is?

Moral rights only allow you to act against mutilation of
the work and lack of proper attribution. And you have the right
to decide on _first_ publication. But once you publish, the
work is on the market and your rights are exhausted. I don't see
a basis for doing a recall.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>>Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
>>>the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
>>>unsuitable for any serious deployment.
> 
> 
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
> 
>>But it can't be done, period.
>>
>>Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> 
> 
> That I am not legally trained does not make me completely unschooled in
> these things.  Believe it or not, I actually did already know the FSF's
> position on the revocability of the GPL.  That is why I opened my
> message with a sentence you helpfully did not quote:
> 
> 
>>>It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes
>>>for a postulate just because the FSF said so.
> 
> 
> I'm much more interested in arguments that do not start with "well, the
> FSF says..." or "this is ridiculous, everyone knows that..." or even
> "for 12 years we've all assumed...".  It seems to me that the FSF
> position on the irrevocability of free software depends on the
> interesting dual notions that the license is not a contract, but
> nonetheless the copyright holder is bound by it.  Michael Edwards
> disputes the former notion; this seems to be a productive line of
> reasoning.

Point taken.  However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
section 6:

  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

To me, that says "Once the cat is out, it's out for good."  So,
if you as the author of GPL software, try to restrict someone that
has already received your software under the terms of the GPL, then
you violate the license.  Since you are the author, it doesn't
affect you so much, since you are also the copyright holder.

The only other alternative is that the GPL is not enforceable.
That would probably call into question the validity of all software
licenses.  However, I am not lawyer (I'm sure you guessed that by
now), so I will refrain from speaking further on this subject.

Incidentally, if there was so much controversy about this and the
origins and rights to the code have been in question, why has
SourceForge let the project continue for 2 years?  I imagine that
it is not their responsibility that to comb through every piece
of code housed on their servers.  However, I would imagine that
it would be part of their due diligence to verify whether a project
like this can even exist on their servers in the first place.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Jacobo Tarrio]

O Mércores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ás 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escribía:

> That is completely not possible.  Once you offer (and someone accepts)
> code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
> *that* code under the GPL.  About the only thing that can be done is

 Assuming that EU laws aren't involved, which allow the author to take all
copies of their work out of circulation (but the laws, or at least Spanish
law, also say that the author must pay damages, and if they decide to return
the work to the "market", it must be under "reasonably similar" conditions).

-- 
   Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Peter Samuelson]

> > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
> > the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
> > unsuitable for any serious deployment.

[Roberto C. Sanchez]
> But it can't be done, period.
> 
> Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

That I am not legally trained does not make me completely unschooled in
these things.  Believe it or not, I actually did already know the FSF's
position on the revocability of the GPL.  That is why I opened my
message with a sentence you helpfully did not quote:

> > It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes
> > for a postulate just because the FSF said so.

I'm much more interested in arguments that do not start with "well, the
FSF says..." or "this is ridiculous, everyone knows that..." or even
"for 12 years we've all assumed...".  It seems to me that the FSF
position on the irrevocability of free software depends on the
interesting dual notions that the license is not a contract, but
nonetheless the copyright holder is bound by it.  Michael Edwards
disputes the former notion; this seems to be a productive line of
reasoning.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
> > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
> > Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
> > for any serious deployment.  Note, however, that "but it *can't* be
> > that way because if it is, we're all in trouble" is not a very strong
> > argument.
> 
> But it can't be done, period.
> 
> Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> 
> "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
> long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the
> power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause,
> the software is not free."

I would advise you to be very, very wary of assertions made by the FSF
about the legal import of the GPL.  Philosophy is strong stuff and has
been known to cloud the mind.  Case law is a more trustworthy guide to
what is and isn't legally possible, not to mention what can and can't
be construed into the terms of the GPL.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
> believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
> to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off.  Presumably
> this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration,
> since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they
> bought and paid for.  It is also possible that she's a looney.

If the GPL were the creature of copyright law that the FSF proclaims,
or the unilateral contract that some apologists believe, that would be
a real problem.  Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences! 
Happily, there is no defect of consideration in the GPL, as the
covenants of return performance (principally the obligation to offer
source code) are non-trivial promises with some value to the licensor.
 Thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html
; note references to Planetary Motion v. Techplosion 2001 later in the
thread.

> Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
> Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
> for any serious deployment.  Note, however, that "but it *can't* be
> that way because if it is, we're all in trouble" is not a very strong
> argument.

It's not a meaningless argument, though; there's a doctrine of
reliance that can substitute for acceptance under some circumstances,
and might be used to estop a copyright holder from yanking an
ostensibly perpetual license if all else failed.  IANAL, etc.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Raul Miller]

On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is completely not possible.  Once you offer (and someone accepts)
> code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
> *that* code under the GPL.

There are some exceptions to this.  For example, if you're not the copyright
holder, your offer doesn't count.  Worse, in the U.S., copyright can
be revoked after 35 years (with lots of legal fine print which makes this
difficult to talk about simply).

But none of that seems relevant here.  (And none of it seems specific
to the GPL -- I think this would be just as true for BSD.)

Or, at least... the assertion by nullsoft that nullsoft wasn't authorized 
to release WASTE seems to raise the question of whether they're 
authorized to claim it wasn't released.  [If they weren't authorized
to release it, who would have been?]

The only reason I can see for Debian to not want to package WASTE 
is that as a general rule we try to go along with the wishes of upstream
developers.  But, ultimately, that kind of issue is up to the package
maintainer.

-- 
Raul

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

Peter Samuelson wrote:

> I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
> believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
> to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off.  Presumably
> this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration,
> since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they
> bought and paid for.  It is also possible that she's a looney.
> 
That is completely not possible.  Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL.  About the only thing that can be done is
to quite releasing new versions of the software or release newer
versions under a more restrictive license.  That, or hope everyone
who receives the code violates the GPL (since that is about the only
you lose your rights under it after the fact).

> Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
> Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
> for any serious deployment.  Note, however, that "but it *can't* be
> that way because if it is, we're all in trouble" is not a very strong
> argument.

But it can't be done, period.

Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the
power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause,
the software is not free."

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Peter Samuelson]

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]
> It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried
> to "take things back". But the GPL doesn't allow for that.

It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for
a postulate just because the FSF said so.  Rather like the assumption
that copyright law gives the GPL scope over libraries whose interfaces
you use.

I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off.  Presumably
this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration,
since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they
bought and paid for.  It is also possible that she's a looney.

Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
for any serious deployment.  Note, however, that "but it *can't* be
that way because if it is, we're all in trouble" is not a very strong
argument.

> But yes,... all of it is based on the initial assumption that
> whomever originally released the code under the GPL was allowed to.

s/whomever/whoever/ (:

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

Yes, you are correct.  I am assuming that.

As far as I can tell, even if AOL didn't approve it, NullSoft, being
the owners of the code, are "allowed" and able to release the code
under whatever license they want to release it under.  (Whether
they'll get in trouble or not from AOL, for doing so, is another
question.)

It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so.  And then
tried to "take things back".  But the GPL doesn't allow for that.

But yes,... all of it is based on the initial assumption that whomever
originally released the code under the GPL was allowed to.



See yaOn 5/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:> Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you> cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is "OK".
You're assuming the people who released it had the right to do that in thefirst place. I can _not_ take the leaked Windows 2000 source code, release itunder the GPL and then claim it is okay to distribute.
/* Steinar */--Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/--  Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ 
gmail.com___
Wikibooks, Free Open-Content
Books  http://wikibooks.org/

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Steinar H. Gunderson]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you 
> cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is "OK".

You're assuming the people who released it had the right to do that in the
first place. I can _not_ take the leaked Windows 2000 source code, release it
under the GPL and then claim it is okay to distribute.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Justin Pryzby]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> (Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
> 
> >From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did 
> infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's parent company) 
> didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because of that. 
> (And thus, it was origianlly authorized by NullSoft, but not authorized by 
> AOL.)
> 
> Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you 
> cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is "OK".
If the person who originally released it had permission to apply that
license, then I guess it is "OK".  Otherwise, it is not even "OK".

Justin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Paul Perpich]

This topic has been beat to death and is the cause for most of the
devs bailing throughout the life of the project (legal concerns). 
There are a couple old articles on /. that should cover all the
arguments (in the comments)...but I'm sure you'll find them all over. 
here's one:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/31/1259206&mode=nested&tid=120&tid=126&tid=187&tid=95




On 5/18/05, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>  
>  (Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
> 
>  From what I understand of the history of WASTE.  At one time, NullSoft did
> infact release WASTE under the GPL.  However, AOL (NullSoft's parent
> company) didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because
> of that.  (And thus, it was origianlly authorized by NullSoft, but not
> authorized by AOL.)
>  
>  Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you
> cannot un-release it.  And if that is the case, then this software is "OK".
>  
>  
>  See ya
>  
>  
>  See ya
>  
> 
> On 5/18/05, Mirco Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > >   Hi all!
> > >
> > > I'm on the way of making a debian package for Waste, and I would have
> the
> > > folowing two questions about your software:
> > >
> > > Does the licence really reflect GPL?
> > > This arise because of this:
> > >
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1&view=auto
> > > "WASTE - license.cpp
> > > Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc.
> > > Copyright (C) 2004 WASTE Development Team"
> > > -> What does Nullsoft have to do with Waste?
> > >
> > > And also this: 
> > > "//ADDED Md5Chap - THIS PART IS GPL LICENSE!!! TOUCH AND DIE!"
> > > Followed by a full binary array.
> > > ...
> > >
> > 
> > I googled for WASTE I found this:
> > http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/
> > According to Nullsoft this is UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE and is not allowed
> > to be distributed!
> > Please delete all source and package copies you may have and do not let
> > it enter debian! 
> > 
> > --
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Mirco 'meebey' Bauer
> > 
> > PGP-Key:
> >
> http://keyserver.noreply.org/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEEF946C8
> > 
> > -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
> > Version: 3.12
> > GIT d s-:+ a-- C++ UL$ P L++$>+++$ E- W+++$ N o? K- w++>! O M-
> > V? PS
> > PE+ Y- PGP++ t 5+ X++ R tv+ b+ DI? D+ G>++ e h! r->++ y?
> > --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- 
> > 
> > 
> > BodyID:12667657.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> 
>  charles @ reptile.ca
>   supercanadian @ gmail.com
> ___
>  Wikibooks, Free Open-Content Books  http://wikibooks.org/
>

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Andrew A. Gill]

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> >From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did
> infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's parent company)
> didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because of that.
> (And thus, it was origianlly authorized by NullSoft, but not authorized by
> AOL.)
>
> Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you
> cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is "OK".

It's a little more complex than that, but essentially, if Debian
doesn't want to include it, it doesn't have to.  Let them do the
same as MPlayer--I'm never going to use Debian, so why should I
care?

-- 
|Andrew A. Gill   |I posted to Silent-Tristero and|
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |all I got was this stupid sig! |
|alt.tv.simpsons CBG-FAQ author   |   |
|  (Report all obscene mail to Le Maitre Pots)|
|Yet:  Temporary sig: --

Why are there so many CCs?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

(Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
>From what I understand of the history of WASTE.  At one time,
NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL.  However, AOL
(NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on
NullSoft's website is because of that.  (And thus, it was
origianlly authorized by NullSoft, but not authorized by AOL.)

Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL,
you cannot un-release it.  And if that is the case, then this
software is "OK".


See ya


See ya
On 5/18/05, Mirco Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:>   Hi all!>> I'm on the way of making a debian package for Waste, and I would have the> folowing two questions about your software:
>> Does the licence really reflect GPL?> This arise because of this:> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1&view=auto
> "WASTE - license.cpp> Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc.> Copyright (C) 2004 WASTE Development Team"> -> What does Nullsoft have to do with Waste?>> And also this:
> "//ADDED Md5Chap - THIS PART IS GPL LICENSE!!! TOUCH AND DIE!"> Followed by a full binary array.> ...>I googled for WASTE I found this:
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/According to Nullsoft this is UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE and is not allowedto be distributed!Please delete all source and package copies you may have and do not letit enter debian!
--Regards,Mirco 'meebey' BauerPGP-Key:http://keyserver.noreply.org/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEEF946C8
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-Version: 3.12GIT d s-:+ a-- C++ UL$ P L++$>+++$ E- W+++$ N o? K- w++>! O M-V? PSPE+ Y- PGP++ t 5+ X++ R tv+ b+ DI? D+ G>++ e h! r->++ y?--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
BodyID:12667657.2.n.logpart (stored separately)-- 
 Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca
 supercanadian @ gmail.com___
 Wikibooks,
Free Open-Content
Books  http://wikibooks.org/