Re: Distributing GPL software

[Michael Poole]

Török Edvin writes:

> On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
> > good questions.  Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
> > US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
> > is derived from another copyrighted work, and I imagine most other
> > countries have their own rules (at least slightly different from the
> > US's) to determine this.  In the case of a shell script, the point is
> > likely moot because the script is its own source code.
> Yes, it is its own source code, but the shell script isn't under GPL,
> so the user isn't allowed to redistribute it. However the shell script
> does nothing but launch the program, and interpret its output, the
> user can modify the shell script to his liking if he wishes so, he can
> replace the programs invoked (there is no need to relink :D).
> Is there some precedent on commercial programs having trouble with
> shell scripts in their products?

I do not know of any.

> > The easiest way to satisfy the GPL is
> > to include the complete source code for the GPLed works that you
> > distribute on the CD, which I think is your second option.
> Yes.
> >
> > Whichever option you choose, you must include a copy of the GPL on the
> > CD and identify the GPLed software.
> Should an install program show the GPL to the user, does the user have
> to accept the GPL license for included GPL software?

Your installer does not have to show the GPL to the user or ask the
user to accept the GPL's terms.  The user only needs to accept the
GPL's terms in order to copy or modify the GPLed works; in practice,
the GPL's limits on what the user does are just on redistribution of
the GPLed works.

Michael Poole

Re: Distributing GPL software

[Török Edvin]

On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions.  Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from another copyrighted work, and I imagine most other
countries have their own rules (at least slightly different from the
US's) to determine this.  In the case of a shell script, the point is
likely moot because the script is its own source code.

Yes, it is its own source code, but the shell script isn't under GPL,
so the user isn't allowed to redistribute it. However the shell script
does nothing but launch the program, and interpret its output, the
user can modify the shell script to his liking if he wishes so, he can
replace the programs invoked (there is no need to relink :D).
Is there some precedent on commercial programs having trouble with
shell scripts in their products?


The easiest way to satisfy the GPL is
to include the complete source code for the GPLed works that you
distribute on the CD, which I think is your second option.

Yes.


Whichever option you choose, you must include a copy of the GPL on the
CD and identify the GPLed software.

Should an install program show the GPL to the user, does the user have
to accept the GPL license for included GPL software?

 Notifying the upstream maintainer is polite but not required by the GPL.

Ok.>

> P.S.:
> If I make changes to a GPL program, is it enough if I submit the
> changes upstream, or do I have to offer the patch (on the CD/on the
> web)?

Neither by itself satisfies the GPL.  The GPL requires that the
binary-code recipient (be able to) get the complete modified source
code.

Ah yes, I meant provide the source code on CD, provide patch to upstream ;)

Cheers,
Edwin


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

Re: Distributing GPL software

[Michael Poole]

Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions.  Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from another copyrighted work, and I imagine most other
countries have their own rules (at least slightly different from the
US's) to determine this.  In the case of a shell script, the point is
likely moot because the script is its own source code.

Török Edvin writes:

> To be "safe", and not violate the GPL, which of the following should I do:
> - A link to where the original sources can be downloaded from
> - Include the sources of xpdf/xdialog
> - Host the sources of xpdf/xdialog on the company's webserver
> 
> Should I also:
> - Write a statement in a README/COPYRIGHT file, enumerating the
> included GPL software, and their copyright
> - Contact upstream, to let them know we use their software

The GPL specifically disallows the first option for commercial
distribution unless you are the one hosting the source code (and you
provide it for at least three years after your most recent
distribution of binary files).  The easiest way to satisfy the GPL is
to include the complete source code for the GPLed works that you
distribute on the CD, which I think is your second option.

Whichever option you choose, you must include a copy of the GPL on the
CD and identify the GPLed software.  Notifying the upstream maintainer
is polite but not required by the GPL.

> P.S.:
> If I make changes to a GPL program, is it enough if I submit the
> changes upstream, or do I have to offer the patch (on the CD/on the
> web)?

Neither by itself satisfies the GPL.  The GPL requires that the
binary-code recipient (be able to) get the complete modified source
code.

Michael Poole

Distributing GPL software

[Török Edvin]

Hi,

I have a couple of questions regarding the distribution of GPL
software on commercial CDs.
[I know the advice from debian-legal doesn't have legal authority, but
I turned to your help, since you have a lot of experience dealing with
licenses/copyrights.]
[If this really is the wrong list, please point me to a more appropriate one]

The situation is as follows:
- I intend to include xpdf, and xdialog on a commercial CD (unmodified
binaries + copyright file, and everything  i found in
/usr/share/doc/$packagename)
- These programs are called from a shell script, so nothing links to
these programs, thus the software on the CD is not a derivative of
xpdf/xdialog, therefore it doesn't have to be GPL (am I right)
- The shell script also calls programs like zenity/kdialog, but these
are not included on the CD.

To be "safe", and not violate the GPL, which of the following should I do:
- A link to where the original sources can be downloaded from
- Include the sources of xpdf/xdialog
- Host the sources of xpdf/xdialog on the company's webserver

Should I also:
- Write a statement in a README/COPYRIGHT file, enumerating the
included GPL software, and their copyright
- Contact upstream, to let them know we use their software

Can a shell script be considered "derived work"?
- it can't work without xdialog/zenity/kdialog being available
- however a shell script "implicitly" means I am distributing the
source code too
[If they are derived works, I might consider rewriting it using gtk,
since that is LGPL, right?
If I do, can I use glade? (it is GPL, but does GPL cover generated code?)]

The rest of the programs on the CD can work without xpdf, but without
the ability to show pdf files, so they aren't derived works, are
they?(they call xpdf using system())

IMHO providing a link where the sources can be downloaded from, and
providing a list of GPL software, and their location on the CD is
enough to comply with the GPL, but I want to be sure.

P.S.:
If I make changes to a GPL program, is it enough if I submit the
changes upstream, or do I have to offer the patch (on the CD/on the
web)?

Thanks in advance,
Edwin


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Plonk.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Raul Miller]

On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
> "With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MySQL has not
> demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
> irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties' experts raise a
> factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative
> or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2."

This bit about the GPL talks of disputed evidence and a factual dispute.
It does not talk about a question of law.

I don't see that this factual dispute sheds any light on the statement by
Moglen which you were denigrating.

--
Raul

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> > > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> > > the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> > > covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under
> > > 17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the
> > > copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to
> > > "escape" it by NOT entering into agreement.
> >
> > In the case Saris ruled on, there was a signed contract.
>
> Regarding what?

To set the record straight...

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_75.html

"We filed a claim on 11 July 2001 for trademark infringement, breach
of the interim agreement, breach of the GPL license, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices."

Breach of the GPL license claim had really nothing to do with interim
agreement. Judge Saris' reliance on interim agreement was limited to
the claim of trademark infringement, not breach of the GPL.

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

"Specifically, MySQL has demonstrated (1) that the agreement
between the parties was an interim agreement that terminated after
August 2000; and (2) that Progress violated Paragraph 6 of that
agreement by using the MySQL trademark after the termination and
by using an unauthorized combination trademark. Continued use of
the trademark will cause MySQL irreparable harm as a matter of law."

That's it regarding interim agreement.

"With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MySQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties' experts raise a
factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative
or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2."

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> > the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> > covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under
> > 17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the
> > copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to
> > "escape" it by NOT entering into agreement.
>
> In the case Saris ruled on, there was a signed contract.

Regarding what?

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Raul Miller]

On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under
> 17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the
> copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to
> "escape" it by NOT entering into agreement.

In the case Saris ruled on, there was a signed contract.

What is your basis for your claim that that aspect of this ruling is
relevant in contexts without a signed contract?

--
Raul

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/22/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:
>
> > BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
> > downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
> > plus postage cost.
>
> Too expensive.  :-P

I'm not going to have a price cut. Sold out already. Too late.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:

> BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
> downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
> plus postage cost.

Too expensive.  :-P

> regards,
> alexander.

Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Andrew Donnellan]

For once I agree with Alexander - you've read the preamble, not the
license, and usually the preamble does not have any legal force.

Andrew

On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a "common
> > sense", practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.
>
> Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
> which doesn't belong to T&C operative for that license agreement
> (let's assume acceptance arguendo) and is as irrelevant as another
> part ("#SEC4" link you seem to like so much) that follows the T&C.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a "common
> sense", practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.

Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
which doesn't belong to T&C operative for that license agreement
(let's assume acceptance arguendo) and is as irrelevant as another
part ("#SEC4" link you seem to like so much) that follows the T&C.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Samuel E RIFFLE]

Daniel, et. al.:

Referring to the PREAMBLE section of the GPL :: 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4  , the below excerpts (quoted 
portions herein)   seem to imply that you only have to  point the 
reciepient to  one  site where he COULD get it if he so choose.  I 
use the preamble, as it  attempts to encapsulate the intent of the license.


And that you can charge whatever you wish, or the market will bear, for 
either the finished cd, or the source code.   If  your overhead demands 
$20/copy, that is your overhead and right to recover.  If you wish to 
make it available as a subsidized  effort, or $0,  that is also your 
option.  You need not charge  any fixed amount.  

YOU  MUST however, let the receiver know of  their legal rights, and the 
GPL legal position..   ie., include the GPL license on the distributed 
media.The directly  downloaded, from OpenOffice.org,  v2.0, for 
windoz, for example already has the LGLP,  placed into the  directory of 
installation, and shows up in the Start menu lists, as License, which 
points to   
file:///C:/Program%20Files/OpenOffice.org%202.0/license.html,  on a  win 
machine.  


Thus, following that model is reasonable, and sufficient.


To be more specific,  look at the following excepts of the 
gpl.html#SEC4  noted in the lead in paragraph of this email.

---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. 
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the 
freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this 
service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you 
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new 
free programs; and that you know you can do these things."

---
So, it seems that you would only need to have the url of the major 
resource for distribution of the software::
 "or  can get it   if you want it",  
being the operational phrase.   Note particularly the  "OR" , which 
contrasts the need to distribute the source yourself, if it is available 
elsewhere.
To me  (check with FSF legal to be sure),   this means  you must inform 
the receiver  that  he/she  "CAN", ie have full permission  and legal 
right to get it, but   he/she  will have to take the steps necessary to 
do so.  That is you can refer to some resource for the source code, it 
is up to the recipient to then obtain it at whatever cost to reproduce 
it that the market bears.Thus they have the right, BUT  the 
exercise of the right is vested in the receiver, the provider need only 
make the receiver aware of that right, and give them first contact 
information, necessary to begin the process of aquisition.


---
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone 
to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These 
restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you 
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.


For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis 
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. 
You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. 
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. "

---

The key words above are "to protect your rights".  So you MUST ensure 
that the distributed media conforms to:


"We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and 
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, 
distribute and/or modify the software."


So you must ensure that  you have properly  annotated the distribution 
media,  top level directory, and/or lable,  the former being more reliable.


The other operational key words in the above are  "all the rights that 
you have".  So  there only needs to be some path to get the source, 
to which you refer, you do not have to establish the only path.   
Refering to mirrors url's  would be a good strategy, as one or more will 
probably survive.


Furthermore,   "or  can get",  is the alternative to you providing 
everything, and you do so to the best of your ability, wrt common and 
standard practices in the industry.Again,  " you must show" , would 
be covered by including the GPL license and a referering URL, or written 
on the cd cover, or handout, but on the actual media would be preferred, 
as it  is implicit proof that you intended to comply.


By publishing the code and source, as GPL, the OpenOffice.org, 
implicitly guarentees that they will make the same source available for 
the legal duration.  Thus you could rely upon that commitment, and I 
would guess implicitly on the supporters of OpenOffice.org, namely Sun, 
as the ultimate underwriters.I also  believe that since there are 
many distributors (hosts,  educational institurions, 
retailier...offering such software online, that, 

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[... not accepting the GPL ...]

> So in this case you cannot make copies

You can download copies without accepting the GPL.

> (nor modifying) of the software anymore.

And adapt/modify computer programs and make additional copies
under 17 USC 117 from copies that you've downloaded without
accepting the GPL.

> I do not think you can agree to the GPL just for a
> limited number of copies of the software.

Sure you can. In addition, in general you can even accept
agreements and deliberately breach them. The contract laws
recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which encourages
breach of a contract if it's economically efficient to do so.
Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if
you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely
have to compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy
interest.

http://sunsite.queensu.ca/localov/dhoucc97/law2.htm
http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/review/Contract/Alpa-1995/alpa2.html

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[olive]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]


In particular read section 4 of the GPL.



It says "You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it." And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a license agreement is not the
only way to accept a license agreement). But the rest of this
sections is nothing but fraudulent misstatements of the copyright
act (regarding rights of owners of computer program copies lawfully
made) and the contract laws governing breach of contractual
covenants.


It seems indeed that redistributing lawfally obtained copies of software 
is not prohibited by copyright law (as long as you do not copy the 
software yourself) but is restricted by the GPL (you have to give the 
source; this indeed contradict the rest of this section). However it 
seems clear to me that if you do not agree to the GPL, then the GPL 
definitively does not apply to you at least for the software in 
question. So in this case you cannot make copies (nor modifying) of the 
software anymore. I do not think you can agree to the GPL just for a 
limited number of copies of the software.


Olive


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> In particular read section 4 of the GPL.

It says "You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it." And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a license agreement is not the
only way to accept a license agreement). But the rest of this
sections is nothing but fraudulent misstatements of the copyright
act (regarding rights of owners of computer program copies lawfully
made) and the contract laws governing breach of contractual
covenants.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[olive]

But couldn't B say he accepts the license for some copies, but not for others?
For the copies that A gave him, he can reject the license and distribute
them by copyright law (first sale).  For anything that he wants to copy or
modify himself, he has to accept the GPL, but he can accept the GPL for just
those particular items.




I am not a lawer but I don't think it is possible. In particular read 
section 4 of the GPL. It seems that either you agree to the GPL and you 
are bound to it. Either you do not agree and the GPL do not apply to you 
anymore. I don't think you can agree to the GPL just for a limited 
copies of the software.


Olive


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/16/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...

Pls don't mess up my game, Ken.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Note also that modification and copying under 17 USC 117
(plus any other lawful activity under any other exceptions and
limitations to exclusive rights) doesn't trigger acceptance.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, olive wrote:
> > I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
> > copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
> > make more copies himself.  B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of 
> > them
> > as he wishes by first sale, without having to obey the GPL.
> This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give 
> you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it. If 
> you don't agree to it you loose your permission and only the normal 
> copyright law apply. So  if B do that he loose forever the possibility 
> of duplicating, redistributing the sofware that he have himself 
> downloaded and modyfing the software since the GPL does not apply to him 
> anymore. I don't think this is a price that is worth paying...

But couldn't B say he accepts the license for some copies, but not for others?
For the copies that A gave him, he can reject the license and distribute
them by copyright law (first sale).  For anything that he wants to copy or
modify himself, he has to accept the GPL, but he can accept the GPL for just
those particular items.


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/16/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give
> you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it.

17 USC 109 (aka copyright exhaustion in Europe) gives you
"permission", not the GPL.

> If you don't agree to it you loose your permission

Wrong. You simply don't enter into agreement, which is the
entire point. (Partly because participating in the antitrust
conspiracy is not good. ;-) )

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[olive]

Ken Arromdee wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:


> And I'm still not in prison. How come?

1. You have  some kind of  understanding with the copyright  holder of
  the program in question.

2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.



I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
make more copies himself.  B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
as he wishes by first sale, without having to obey the GPL.


This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give 
you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it. If 
you don't agree to it you loose your permission and only the normal 
copyright law apply. So  if B do that he loose forever the possibility 
of duplicating, redistributing the sofware that he have himself 
downloaded and modyfing the software since the GPL does not apply to him 
anymore. I don't think this is a price that is worth paying...


Olive


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem
> to work here.  The first step would become "Person A can legally make and
> distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..."  This statement would be
> true for GPL software and false for Windows XP, so the argument wouldn't
> extend to Windows XP.  Only licenses that contain the specific quirks of
> the GPL would have this loophole.

And provision of viral assent in Rosen OSL is meant the close this
"loophole".

In this respect, I really like the following legislative proposal:

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf



Copyright Act should state unambiguously that non-negotiated
license terms are pre-empted to the extent that they conflict
with the Act. Consistent with the model from the Boucher-
Campbell Bill cited above (in Section II of these comments)
and supported by the Libraries and a broad coalition of
interested parties, H.R. 3048, section 301(a) of the title 17,
United States Code should be amended by adding the following
at the end thereof:

When a work is distributed to the public subject to non-
negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable
under the common law or statutes of any state to the extent
that they:

(1) limit the reproduction, adaptation, distribution,
performance, or display, by means of transmission or otherwise,
of material that is uncopyrightable under section 102(b) or
otherwise; or

(2) abrogate or restrict the limitations on exclusive rights
specified in sections 107 through 114 and sections 117, 118
 

and 121 of this title.



;-) ;-)

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
> copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
> make more copies himself.  B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
> as he wishes by first sale, without having to obey the GPL.

That's right. But you don't really need person B unless you modify the
GPL'd work.

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf

"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
 form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
 DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
 copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
 of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
 floppy disk, Zip™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
 109."

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/13/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:
>
>  > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
>
> 1. You have  some kind of  understanding with the copyright  holder of
>the program in question.

Not really. I went to MS online shop and ordered winxp64 beta (or
whatever they called it). I had two choices: a free download or a
CD. I've chosen the former. I did it 15 times. MS sent me a bunch
of confirmations of my orders with links to download (same link)
and keys. That's it.

>
> 2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.

I've broken nothing, stupid.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/13/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> > to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
>
> I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
> that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
> licensed programs.



The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by
the licensor.



and



the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the
license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she
doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits



>
> That certainly seems to be the essence of your argument.

Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under
17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the
copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to
"escape" it by NOT entering into agreement.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Ken Arromdee]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>  > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
> 
> 1. You have  some kind of  understanding with the copyright  holder of
>the program in question.
>  
> 2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.

I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
make more copies himself.  B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
as he wishes by first sale, without having to obey the GPL.

The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem
to work here.  The first step would become "Person A can legally make and
distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..."  This statement would be
true for GPL software and false for Windows XP, so the argument wouldn't
extend to Windows XP.  Only licenses that contain the specific quirks of
the GPL would have this loophole.


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:

 > And I'm still not in prison. How come?

1. You have  some kind of  understanding with the copyright  holder of
   the program in question.
 
2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.
 
-- 
Mahesh T. Pai

Distribute Free Software --
   Help stamp out Software Hoarding!


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Raul Miller]

On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.

I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
licensed programs.

That certainly seems to be the essence of your argument.

That certainly does not seem to be the intent of the statement.

Given that the primary value of such statements is in determining
intent, I'm not sure why you think your argument gains any
validity from that statement.

--
Raul

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Universe won't collapse as a result, believe me.

Isaac got it:

-
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies.  If the law requires that
a backup or adapted copy be distributed with the originals, Alexander would
do that and then acquire, at no expense, a new copy.  Rinse lather repeat.

You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.

I'm not aware of an expectation or requirement to accept the GPL before
downloading the software.  Free software is often made available for
downloading without any notice obtained before, during or after the download
that the copies obtained must be deleted if the GPL is not accepted.

Anyone can obtain GPLd software, and provided only that they include source
code, operate a free or paid distribution ftp site in which they allow
GPLd software to be downloaded without restriction.

Isaac


regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.

Download some FSF's perl like emacs.

>
> 2) Buy a computer without that piece of software on it.

Check.

>
> 3) Install the software on that computer, since you are allowed to
>make the installation copy by license or statute.

It is by statute. 17 USC 117. But it creates special class of copies
"copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section
may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy
from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease,
sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program."

>
> 4) Sell or gift the computer to someone else.

Check. But with the copy of the downloaded package.

>
> 5) Repeat steps 2 through 4 until the software vendor sues you.

No. Repeat steps 1 (download) through 4.

>
> 6) Claim 17 USC 109 as a defense.

It's a defense for transfer of the downloaded copy. The transfer of the
installation copy along with the downloaded copy is made under 17
USC 117.

>
> 7) Let us know how it turns out.

Universe won't collapse as a result, believe me.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
> >
> > Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first 
> > sale".
>
> By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore
> theft is not illegal.

That's not my logic. My logic is that you can distribute (subject
to exceptions for rental of software, sound recording, and music)
*lawfully made* copies WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER. 17 USC 109.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > > >
> > > > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   
> > > > > > While
> > > > > > distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from 
> > > > > > ''
> > > > > > will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  
> > > > > > commercial
> > > > > > distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons 
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> > > > > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
> > > >
> > > > Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
> > > > the test:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
> > >
> > > Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged
> > > by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from
> > > Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141.
> > >
> > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
> > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html
> > >
> > > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
> >
> > You skipped step #5 in my suggested process,
>
> That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
>
> Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".

BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
plus postage cost.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.

Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".


By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore 
theft is not illegal.


Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > >
> > > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
> > > > > distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
> > > > > source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
> > > > > person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from ''
> > > > > will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
> > > > > distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
> > > > > contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> > > >
> > > > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> > > > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
> > >
> > > Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
> > > the test:
> > >
> > > 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
> >
> > Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged
> > by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from
> > Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141.
> >
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html
> >
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
>
> You skipped step #5 in my suggested process,

That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.

Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michael Poole]

Alexander Terekhov writes:

> On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
> > > > distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
> > > > source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
> > > > person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from ''
> > > > will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
> > > > distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
> > > > contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> > >
> > > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> > > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
> >
> > Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
> > the test:
> >
> > 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
> 
> Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged
> by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from
> Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141.
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html
> 
> And I'm still not in prison. How come?

You skipped step #5 in my suggested process, which is necessary for a
variety of economic and PR reasons.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
> > > distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
> > > source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
> > > person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from ''
> > > will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
> > > distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
> > > contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> >
> > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
>
> Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
> the test:
>
> 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.

Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged
by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from
Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html

And I'm still not in prison. How come?

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michael Poole]

Alexander Terekhov writes:

> On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
> > distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
> > source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
> > person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from ''
> > will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
> > distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
> > contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> 
> Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".

Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
the test:

1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.

2) Buy a computer without that piece of software on it.

3) Install the software on that computer, since you are allowed to
   make the installation copy by license or statute.

4) Sell or gift the computer to someone else.

5) Repeat steps 2 through 4 until the software vendor sues you.

6) Claim 17 USC 109 as a defense.

7) Let us know how it turns out.

8) Until then, stop spamming Debian mailing lists and be a little more
   polite when you do post.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
> distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
> source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
> person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from ''
> will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
> distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
> contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ).

Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".

< quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >

Red Hat, Inc.:

  Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
  impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
  comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
  someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
  are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
  The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
  with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
  licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
  from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
  the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
  and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
  ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
  jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
  licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

  We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
  authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
  lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
  [but electronic redistribution/move-and-delete of that copy to
  downstream recipient is not covered by first sale]

Library Associations:

  First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
  result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
  engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
  tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
  owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
  to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
  Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
  on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
  first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
  literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
  provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
  and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
  because of changing habits due to new inventions and
  discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
  151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
  doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
  throughout society.

I'm with libraries,
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation oughta be
legal.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Daniel Carrera said on Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:06:52PM +,:

 > Michael Poole wrote:
 > >As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
 > >given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
 > >"noncommercial".  You have given no hint whether your distribution
 > >could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
 > >as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution".
 > 
 > These CDs are for the SCALE conference (Sourthern California Linux 
 > Expo). I was thinking of selling the CDs at like $1 to recover the cost. 
 > I guess that constitutes "commercial" use :(
 > 
 > If by "written permission" the GPL means "paper", then I certainly don't 
 > have that :(  If written can be "electronic" I'll check the distribution 
 > to see if it has that.

Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from ''
will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
contact you at the . (you now comply with 3(b) ). 
 
I suppose you will be  distributing the binaries as you download them;
so hunt  down the  url from where  the sources are  available. Include
URIs to both the binary and source in (preferably the same as in above
para) file  on the cd. This  should reduce the burden  of requests for
sources made direct to you.

-- 
Mahesh T. Pai

Copying an idea is plagiarism. Copying many ideas
from many authors is RESEARCH.


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander>
> Alexander> Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
> Alexander> on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its 
> interpretation.
> Alexander> As a contract (properly construed, contrary to its wording and 
> FSF' stance)
> Alexander> GPL is "most closely connected" to Boston. It would be insane to 
> have
> Alexander> different interpretations depending on origin of this or that
> Alexander> contribution (combinations aside for a moment) in works that are 
> open
> Alexander> for
> Alexander> contributions world-wide.
> Alexander>
>
>
> I hate to feed this particular troll,

That's OK, I'll reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> but yopu have just demonstrated
> that not only do you not know squat about copyright law, but also that
> you don't know anything about private international law either. The
> GPL

"GPL version 2 was constructed only with attention to the details of US law"

  -- (c)Free Software Foundation, Inc., 2005.

> is most closely connected to nowhere, it all depends on where the
> parties are, etc.

Yeah. Let's see. How many parties (and from where) do we have in,
say, linux?

> You do know that the FSF is not the only person to
> license under the GPL, right?

That's right (except that the FSF is not a person). But you're dead wrong.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
> > with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
> > sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
>
> I would be interested to hear afterwards how many people actually
> asked for this (and how many people took just the binaries CD).
> It might be useful as a data point next time this question comes up.

Given that the SCALE conference is in a country to which Welte is
"not going to travel anymore",

http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/2006/01/04/#20060104-gplv3-conference

I predict: 0.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

Daniel Carrera wrote:

My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops 
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the 
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".


I would be interested to hear afterwards how many people actually
asked for this (and how many people took just the binaries CD).
It might be useful as a data point next time this question comes up.


Sure.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops 
> with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the 
> sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".

I would be interested to hear afterwards how many people actually
asked for this (and how many people took just the binaries CD).
It might be useful as a data point next time this question comes up.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European 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: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I 
charge for the media and burn the CDs?  So I just have to bring some 
CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.


Sure, that should be ok.


My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops 
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the 
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".


This seems to be the least cumbersome solution.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi Daniel!

You wrote:

> >This is also the easiest way to deal with your case - have copies of
> >the source on hand, and give them to anybody who asks for them
> >(charging extra for the extra media). Most people probably won't
> >ask.
> 
> How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I 
> charge for the media and burn the CDs?  So I just have to bring some 
> CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.

Sure, that should be ok.

-- 
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++ 


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 11 Jan 2006 20:27:49 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin A'Lee writes:
>
> > If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> > whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL.  Is this not against
> > the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
>
> Please stop feeding the troll.  He lives in a land where words do not
> mean what they reasonably mean,

Hey Poole, that "lay reading" passage regarding "first sale" belongs to
the author of http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean
his treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee).

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/0e12f3571b78d7bd

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL.  Is this not against
> the law

Downloads aside for a moment and assuming that the GPL is a
bilateral contract (contrary to the GPL's own idiotic wording
reflecting moronically utopian FSF's/RMS's political views)...

Suppose for a moment that the GPL said nothing about distribution.
The statutory right of distribution for copies "lawfully made" (pursuant
to license grants) would then apply. 17 USC 109. But the GPL limits
the licensee's freedom by imposing contractual obligation and
forbearance from statutory right under 17 USC 109 through a
contractual covenant.

To quote one really nice MS brief,


While a party that owns copyright rights is ordinarily entitled to pursue
infringement claims against any third party who violates them, the courts
have recognized that the rights and remedies available to copyright
holders change significantly when the owner elects to give others a
nonexclusive license to use such property. In that situation, the
owner/user relationship is fundamentally different. Absent a license, the
rights of the copyright holder are governed by statutory and common
law rules applicable to such rights. With a license, however, the terms
and covenants of the license establish the applicable rules. See
Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen , 908 F.2d 555, 559 (9th Cir. 1990)
(in granting a copyright license, the licensor gives up its right to sue
the licensee for infringement).

Recognizing that the existence of consensual licensing arrangements
significantly changes the applicable rules and the expectations of the
parties, federal courts have held that a party cannot normally pursue a
copyright infringement action based upon the licensees breach of
covenants in the license agreement. As a general rule, " if the
[licensees] improper conduct constitutes a breach of a covenant
undertaken by the licensee . . . and if such covenant constitutes an
enforceable contractual obligation, then the licensor will have the
cause of action for contract," not for copyright infringement. Graham
v. James , 144 F.3d 229, 236-37 (2d Cir. 1998) quoting 3 Melville B.
Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, 10.15[A] at 10-120
(1998); see also Kolbe v. Trudel , 945 F. Supp. 1268, 1270-71
(D. Ariz. 1996). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Topolos v. Caldewey,
698 F.2d 991, 993 (9th Cir. 1983):

[A] case does not arise under the federal copyright laws . . . merely
because the subject matter of the action involves or affects a copyright.


It's the same basic law in all circuits.

> (in the US, UK, wherever)?

Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its interpretation.
As a contract (properly construed, contrary to its wording and FSF' stance)
GPL is "most closely connected" to Boston. It would be insane to have
different interpretations depending on origin of this or that
contribution (combinations aside for a moment) in works that are open
for
contributions world-wide.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michael Poole]

Benjamin A'Lee writes:

> If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL.  Is this not against
> the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?

Please stop feeding the troll.  He lives in a land where words do not
mean what they reasonably mean, and where actions do not mean what
they are intended to achieve.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Benjamin A'Lee]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:36:42AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > > just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
> > >
> > > Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or
> > > Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?
> >
> > You aren't required to give copies of the source to
> > everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
> > for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
> > options either), then they would be breaking the law.
> 
> Bullshit. Go read 17 USC 109. That's the law.
> 

If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL.  Is this not against
the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?

Ben

-- 
Termisoc Tech Officer: 
My Homepage: 
"Saying that Java is nice because it works on all OSes is like saying
that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders" - bash.org



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > > just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF

"Netscape argues that the mere act of downloading indicates
assent. However, downloading is hardly an unambiguous indication
of assent. The primary purpose of downloading is to obtain a
product, not to assent to an agreement. ... Netscape's failure
to require users of SmartDownload to indicate assent to its
license as a precondition to downloading and using its software
is fatal to its argument that a contract has been formed."

> > > Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or
> > > Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?
> >
> > You aren't required to give copies of the source to
> > everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
> > for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
> > options either), then they would be breaking the law.
>
> Bullshit. Go read 17 USC 109. That's the law.

http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm) cited Specht v.
Netscape, BTW. Read it.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
> >
> > Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or
> > Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?
>
> You aren't required to give copies of the source to
> everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
> for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
> options either), then they would be breaking the law.

Bullshit. Go read 17 USC 109. That's the law.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
> >give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
> >the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
> >access.]
> > 
> >That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.
> 
> Now many CDs does the Debian distribution take?

Depends. 14 or more, depending on what is being distributed. We don't
bother to do the entire set though; at most we do CD #1, quite often
only the netinst. [If someone wants to get the entire set, there are
vendors who will provide it as well as source code.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
"You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember
when you are old."
 -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar p413)

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> [And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
> apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold,

The doctrine is codified in 17 USC 109. It is commonly called
"first sale", but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in
the statute and not some lay reading of "first", "sale", or even
"first sale".

> and (b) the work is not licensed in a manner that restricts
> transfer of ownership

Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract. To quote the FSF's own
director and counsel Moglen elaborating on GPL's pretty clear
wording on acceptance/assent:



The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by
the licensor.



and



the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the
license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she
doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits



But it doesn't matter. As long as the GPL doesn't impose viral
chain of assent akin to the OSL, I'm safe anyway -- read again
what I wrote in this thread including linked legalese.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Andrew Suffield wrote:

You aren't required to give copies of the source to
everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
options either), then they would be breaking the law.

This is also the easiest way to deal with your case - have copies of
the source on hand, and give them to anybody who asks for them
(charging extra for the extra media). Most people probably won't
ask.


How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I 
charge for the media and burn the CDs?  So I just have to bring some 
CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.


Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I 
> just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
> 
> Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or 
> Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?

You aren't required to give copies of the source to
everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
options either), then they would be breaking the law.

This is also the easiest way to deal with your case - have copies of
the source on hand, and give them to anybody who asks for them
(charging extra for the extra media). Most people probably won't
ask.

Pointing to a third party website is not explicitly prohibited but
it's also rather dubious. Particularly if it's one of ours - we do
*not* normally provide source for a period of three years or
longer. And you've got no way to guarantee that the site will be there
for that long.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:42:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> >him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> >redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
> >T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain please?
> T&C means "Terms and Conditions", right?

Terekhov has an 'interesting' interpretation of copyright which
involves pretending it doesn't exist. I recommend you not do this (or
at least not without asking your lawyer first, who will probably say
"no fucking way").

Getting drawn into a discussion with him is probably a waste of your
time.

[And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold, and (b)
the work is not licensed in a manner that restricts transfer of
ownership - neither of which are the case here].

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.
> >
> > The rest is here:
> >
> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
>
> That looks doggy to me...

Why? BTW, can you really read and comprehend legalese so fast? ;-)

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Andrew Donnellan]

Sarge takes 14 binaries and another 14 source...

Just 'offer' the source code by mail, and hopefully noone will ask for it.

Andrew

On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
> > give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
> > the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
> > access.]
> >
> > That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.
>
> Now many CDs does the Debian distribution take?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
> --
>   /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
>  /\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
> /\/_/
> \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
> /
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Don Armstrong wrote:

What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
 
That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.


Now many CDs does the Debian distribution take?

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.

The rest is here:

http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm


That looks doggy to me... I think I'll pass. Thanks anyways.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Yorick Cool]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:42:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Daniel> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Daniel> >It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it 
from
Daniel> >him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
Daniel> >redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive 
contractual
Daniel> >T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
Daniel> 
Daniel> I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain please?
Daniel> T&C means "Terms and Conditions", right?

Pay no attention to the troll.

-- 
Yorick


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> > him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> > redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
> > T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
>
> I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain please?
> T&C means "Terms and Conditions", right?

Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.

The rest is here:

http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michael Poole]

Daniel Carrera writes:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> > him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> > redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
> > T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain please?
> T&C means "Terms and Conditions", right?

Mr. Terekhov is trolling his standard "the GPL means nothing and
intent of copying is irrelevant under this [fuzzy] reading of US
copyright law" position.  There was an unfortunate flame war about it
on this list last week, if you want to waste a few hours reading it.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).


I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain please?
T&C means "Terms and Conditions", right?

Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> >As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> >given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> >"noncommercial".  You have given no hint whether your distribution
> >could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
> >as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution".
> 
> These CDs are for the SCALE conference (Sourthern California Linux 
> Expo). I was thinking of selling the CDs at like $1 to recover the cost. 
> I guess that constitutes "commercial" use :(

What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
 
That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.


Don Armstrong

-- 
I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like
to run their own business.  I know men that would make my wife a
better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to
'em.
 -- The Best of Will Rogers

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Andrew Donnellan]

Just put a note in the CD case with your address listed and say that
if you want the source code, send $4-5 for media and postage for a CD.
Also list the URL for source downloads from the website. Most probably
no one will ask you for it. If someone does, the GPL does not specify
a timeframe, so you'll have enough time to download it.

andrew

On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> > given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> > "noncommercial".  You have given no hint whether your distribution
> > could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
> > as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution".
>
> These CDs are for the SCALE conference (Sourthern California Linux
> Expo). I was thinking of selling the CDs at like $1 to recover the cost.
> I guess that constitutes "commercial" use :(
>
> If by "written permission" the GPL means "paper", then I certainly don't
> have that :(  If written can be "electronic" I'll check the distribution
> to see if it has that.
>
> > The catch is that when you download a GPLed executable, you usually
> > have "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place",
> > which satisifes section 3(a) but is not a written offer under 3(b).
>
> :(
> Does that mean that all the people selling Knoppix CDs for $2 are
> breaking the law?
>
> > It may be that OpenOffice's copyright holders think noncommercial
> > distribution is fine if it includes a link to the source code but no
> > source code, but as far as I can tell, it is not specifically allowed
> > by the GPL.
>
> I'm sure that they are ok with it, since the distribution project
> actually makes an ISO available for people to download and distribute.
> And they encourage selling. But I'd still like to comply with the GPL.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
> --
>   /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
>  /\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
> /\/_/
> \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
> /
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[... obligation to provide access to source code ...]

> Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all.

It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).

regards,
alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michael Poole]

Daniel Carrera writes:

> Michael Poole wrote:
> > As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> > given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> > "noncommercial".  You have given no hint whether your distribution
> > could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
> > as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution".
> 
> These CDs are for the SCALE conference (Sourthern California Linux
> Expo). I was thinking of selling the CDs at like $1 to recover the
> cost. I guess that constitutes "commercial" use :(

My guess is that this would be noncommercial, but if you want legal
advice (advice you can cite on if someone complains) you need to get
it from a lawyer, which I am not.

> If by "written permission" the GPL means "paper", then I certainly
> don't have that :(  If written can be "electronic" I'll check the
> distribution to see if it has that.
> 
> > The catch is that when you download a GPLed executable, you usually
> > have "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place",
> > which satisifes section 3(a) but is not a written offer under 3(b).
> 
> :(
> Does that mean that all the people selling Knoppix CDs for $2 are
> breaking the law?

I suspect not, but except in egregious cases, I try not to come to
legal conclusions about either tort or criminal liability.  That kind
of thing is better left to those who are paid to do it.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Michael Poole wrote:

As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
"noncommercial".  You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution".


These CDs are for the SCALE conference (Sourthern California Linux 
Expo). I was thinking of selling the CDs at like $1 to recover the cost. 
I guess that constitutes "commercial" use :(


If by "written permission" the GPL means "paper", then I certainly don't 
have that :(  If written can be "electronic" I'll check the distribution 
to see if it has that.



The catch is that when you download a GPLed executable, you usually
have "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place",
which satisifes section 3(a) but is not a written offer under 3(b).


:(
Does that mean that all the people selling Knoppix CDs for $2 are 
breaking the law?



It may be that OpenOffice's copyright holders think noncommercial
distribution is fine if it includes a link to the source code but no
source code, but as far as I can tell, it is not specifically allowed
by the GPL.


I'm sure that they are ok with it, since the distribution project 
actually makes an ISO available for people to download and distribute. 
And they encourage selling. But I'd still like to comply with the GPL.


Thanks for the help.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Michael Poole]

Daniel Carrera writes:

> I hope that section 3c might save me here. Here's my reasoning: when I
> downloaded OpenOffice I didn't get the sources. So, by section 3b, I
> must have a promise to the sources. So, by section 3c, I can transfer
> that promise to you.
> 
> Does that work?

As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
"noncommercial".  You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution".

The catch is that when you download a GPLed executable, you usually
have "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place",
which satisifes section 3(a) but is not a written offer under 3(b).

It may be that OpenOffice's copyright holders think noncommercial
distribution is fine if it includes a link to the source code but no
source code, but as far as I can tell, it is not specifically allowed
by the GPL.

Michael Poole


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

Distributing GPL software.

[Daniel Carrera]

Hello all,

Say I want to put OpenOffice.org on a CD and distribute it. According to 
the L/GPL I have to include the source code or promise to have the 
source code available for three years (section 3).


The problem is that the source code for OOo is a few gigabytes. :( It's 
not practical to distribute the source code. In my CD I also want to 
include KOffice and Abiword, which makes the problem worse.


Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I 
just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.


Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or 
Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?


I hope that section 3c might save me here. Here's my reasoning: when I 
downloaded OpenOffice I didn't get the sources. So, by section 3b, I 
must have a promise to the sources. So, by section 3c, I can transfer 
that promise to you.


Does that work?

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/
   \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
   /


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Martin Schulze]

Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.  No one burning CDs
> > > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
> > 
> > Err...  They have received the binary code *and* the source, but
> > decided to ignore the source.  Debian distributes both source and
> > binary on their archive, for both individual packages and cd images.
> 
> Yes, so Debian is using 3(a), not 3(b).

Indeed, I'd consider Debian uses (1) [1], since we're distributing
source and binary at the same time, through the Internet.

> Therefore no-one who redistributes
> directly from our archive can use 3(c).

That's my interpretation as well.

As a result, even non-profit entities need to provide the source as in
(2) [3(b) in your numbering, I guess], that is, use a written offer
and provide the source for three years at least.

This is important for all Debian people who are burning CD's for
exhibitions etc.

> (They key is that we provide only
> "current" sources, not sources from up to 3 years ago.)

Well, not exactly, it's a bit more complicated (as usual...).  We
provide the most recent source for the particular distribution,
i.e. this includes old versions of software in older distributions
(think slink/potato/bo/etc.) but maybe not the version which was
burned on an r0 CD.

> A second-stage distributor could use option 3 when redistributing something
> from a first-stage distributor, but is that really the audience of your
> text?  Such a second stage is probably not going to be a "vendor", but
> someone giving a CD to a friend.

Per definition: sure, it is.  The audience is "anybody who distributes
Debian on CD or via CD images".

The goal is to present all entities that distribute Debian a guideline
or a policy that lists their requirements to fulfil the license terms
properly.  I don't want to harm anybody, it's even the other way
around, I'd like to preserve them from being harmed by software
authors who see their license violated.

Regards,

Joey

[1] http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/legal

-- 
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Richard Braakman]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.  No one burning CDs
> > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
> 
> Err...  They have received the binary code *and* the source, but
> decided to ignore the source.  Debian distributes both source and
> binary on their archive, for both individual packages and cd images.

Yes, so Debian is using 3(a), not 3(b).  Therefore no-one who redistributes
directly from our archive can use 3(c).  (They key is that we provide only
"current" sources, not sources from up to 3 years ago.)

A second-stage distributor could use option 3 when redistributing something
from a first-stage distributor, but is that really the audience of your
text?  Such a second stage is probably not going to be a "vendor", but
someone giving a CD to a friend.

-- 
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
  (Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Martin Schulze]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Could people please comment on 
> 
> > http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html

Could you reread and check?

> > I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> > like the advice to be correct.
> 
> Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.  No one burning CDs
> from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> even non-profits cannot exercise this option.

Err...  They have received the binary code *and* the source, but
decided to ignore the source.  Debian distributes both source and
binary on their archive, for both individual packages and cd images.

> Providing CDs "on demand" only satisfies the GPL if the distributor
> included a written offer.  If there's no written offer, the source has

Fixed.

> to be provided up front.  The explanatory text doesn't emphasize this
> enough, IMHO -- as we all know, there are people who won't read (or
> understand, perhaps) the license text, even when excerpted for them. ;)

Is it phrased better now?  If not, could you send a patch for the
text?

Regards,

Joey

-- 
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > As the GPL says:
> > 
> > (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> > merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> > some other third party--at cost alone.
> 
> How long is this offer valid?  The GPL says "at least three years".
> 
> A non-profit third party copies CDs they purchased at Software Retailers
> Inc. (SRI sells binary-1,2,3 and has source-1,2,3 at the customer service
> desk), they can pass along the information about SRI providing the source
> code.  If this is 3 years (and 1 day) after SRI sold its last binary CDs,
> and SRI has discarded their source copies, is there a violation?

There is no violation, which is why clause (3) is so restricted in its
application.  Perhaps these days, it should be dropped entirely.


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
> vendors, is to offer either "binary" or "binary + source" CD sets, for
> the same price.  That way they don't have to worry about the 3-year
> offer, and customers don't have to bother with source CDs if they don't
> want them.  I expect that many will get the source just because it's
> free, but the vendor might prefer that to the 3-year offer.

This is always the easier way.  Just giving source right out is always
easier than fretting about the written offer clause.  And since CDs
are so bloody cheap, it's trivial.  Heck, why not just always ship
both?


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Joe Moore]

> As the GPL says:
> 
> (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> some other third party--at cost alone.

How long is this offer valid?  The GPL says "at least three years".

A non-profit third party copies CDs they purchased at Software Retailers
Inc. (SRI sells binary-1,2,3 and has source-1,2,3 at the customer service
desk), they can pass along the information about SRI providing the source
code.  If this is 3 years (and 1 day) after SRI sold its last binary CDs,
and SRI has discarded their source copies, is there a violation?

--Joe


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could people please comment on 

> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html

> I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> like the advice to be correct.

Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.  No one burning CDs
from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
even non-profits cannot exercise this option.

> Any entity that distributes binary-only Debian CDs or images has to
> provide CDs or images with the matching source code on demand. If no
> source CDs are provided regularily the easiest way to fulfil this
> requirement is to burn a CD and store it in a shelf. When somebody
> requests the source code, this can be fulfilled with a manually burned
> copy.

Providing CDs "on demand" only satisfies the GPL if the distributor
included a written offer.  If there's no written offer, the source has
to be provided up front.  The explanatory text doesn't emphasize this
enough, IMHO -- as we all know, there are people who won't read (or
understand, perhaps) the license text, even when excerpted for them. ;)

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpd4du4eWxGw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Richard Braakman]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could people please comment on 
> 
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html

One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
vendors, is to offer either "binary" or "binary + source" CD sets, for
the same price.  That way they don't have to worry about the 3-year
offer, and customers don't have to bother with source CDs if they don't
want them.  I expect that many will get the source just because it's
free, but the vendor might prefer that to the 3-year offer.

-- 
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
  (Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Martin Schulze]

Could people please comment on 

http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html

I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
All language designers are arrogant.  Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
> as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
> the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
> to advise the person, who receives the binary form, how to obtain the
> source code of the software.  Pointing them only to an FTP server from
> a third party is not sufficient.

As the GPL says:

(1) You can give them a copy of the source yourself.  (If they are
downloading the binary from some archive, then putting the source on
the same archive is good enough; you don't have to force them to
download it.)

OR

(2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
some other third party--at cost alone.

OR

(3) IF you are a non-profit, and IF you received the binaries with an
offer like in number (2) above, then you can merely pass on that
offer. 

> When such a CD (or image) is distributed the distributor is required
> to inform the user how to obtain the source code and is advised to
> distribute a source CD (containing the exact source to all packages on
> the binary CD) through the same channels or burn a CD and store it in
> a shelf, so a user request for source code can be fulfilled with a
> manually burned copy.

No, the distributor is *required* to either provide the source at no
additional charge, OR give an offer like number (2).  Merely informing
"how to obtain the source code" is not necessarily sufficient.

> If such a CD is distributed through mail order on a physical medium,
> the source code has to be made available through mail order on a
> physical medium as well, since the distributor must not assume the
> user has sufficient bandwidth/internet access to download a large
> amount of data.

Not merely "made available".  Either it comes *with* the binaries at
no additional cost, or it must come with an offer to provide the
source at cost of distribution alone.

Thomas


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

Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

[Martin Schulze]

I'm trying a summary here.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
to advise the person, who receives the binary form, how to obtain the
source code of the software.  Pointing them only to an FTP server from
a third party is not sufficient.

When such a CD (or image) is distributed the distributor is required
to inform the user how to obtain the source code and is advised to
distribute a source CD (containing the exact source to all packages on
the binary CD) through the same channels or burn a CD and store it in
a shelf, so a user request for source code can be fulfilled with a
manually burned copy.

If such a CD is distributed through mail order on a physical medium,
the source code has to be made available through mail order on a
physical medium as well, since the distributor must not assume the
user has sufficient bandwidth/internet access to download a large
amount of data.

Useful for reading:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet

Regards,

Joey

-- 
MIME - broken solution for a broken design.  -- Ralf Baechle

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Simon Law]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 01:34:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I'm asking what A and B should do to bring themselves into
> > compliance.  I don't want to sue or attack entities.  I would like to
> > document the required behaviour somewhere, though, so entities know
> > what their obligation is if they are repackaging and redistributing
> > the Debian system.
> 
> Once A or B has distributed GPLed binaries in this manner without the
> source, the offense is there, and they are vulnerable to a lawsuit
> because of the license violation.  C.f. the widely-publicized MySQL
> court case.  Assuming all parties are acting in good faith, which has
> tended to be the case in the Free Software community, it is probably
> sufficient if A and B take steps to ensure that all further distribution
> of binaries complies with the GPL.  If A or B knows how to reach some or
> all of those they distributed binaries to commercially, as an additional
> show of good faith they might send a copy of the sources to these
> recipients as the GPL originally required them to do.

Also remember that once someone has violated the GPL, they are
no longer licensed and do _not_ have the freedoms granted by the GPL.
Thus, many companies like to settle in a mutually acceptable agreement.

Simon


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

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >  4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> > > not in complience with the license terms?

> > Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
> > into compliance, or are you asking what can be done to legally force
> > them to?

> I'm asking what A and B should do to bring themselves into
> compliance.  I don't want to sue or attack entities.  I would like to
> document the required behaviour somewhere, though, so entities know
> what their obligation is if they are repackaging and redistributing
> the Debian system.

Once A or B has distributed GPLed binaries in this manner without the
source, the offense is there, and they are vulnerable to a lawsuit
because of the license violation.  C.f. the widely-publicized MySQL
court case.  Assuming all parties are acting in good faith, which has
tended to be the case in the Free Software community, it is probably
sufficient if A and B take steps to ensure that all further distribution
of binaries complies with the GPL.  If A or B knows how to reach some or
all of those they distributed binaries to commercially, as an additional
show of good faith they might send a copy of the sources to these
recipients as the GPL originally required them to do.

The best remedy, however, is still to avoid violating the GPL in the
first place; while I believe that most authors of Free Software are
willing to forgive innocent mistakes, neither Debian nor anyone else can
protect A and B from a lawsuit if this turns out to not be the case.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpODlvldtc8q.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Martin Schulze]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> >  4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> > not in complience with the license terms?
> 
> Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
> into compliance, or are you asking what can be done to legally force
> them to?

I'm asking what A and B should do to bring themselves into
compliance.  I don't want to sue or attack entities.  I would like to
document the required behaviour somewhere, though, so entities know
what their obligation is if they are repackaging and redistributing
the Debian system.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
There are lies, statistics and benchmarks.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 10:33:15AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:

> The current status quo:

>a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
>   that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
>   binary packages, no source.  This CD is sold and distributed
>   freely through the internet.

>   When asked about the source of the binary CD, company A points
>   to ftp.debian.org.

>b) An entity B (could be a company, or a single person, or a
>   project) lects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
>   that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
>   binary packages, no source.  This ISO image is distributed
>   freely through the internet and is sold on CD at an exhibition.

>   When asked about the source of the binary CD, B points to
>   ftp.debian.org.

> Questions:

>  1. Is either a) or b) in complience with the GPL (assuming all
> software is licensed using the GNU GPL.

Section 3c) of the GPL:

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

This is the only clause of the GPL that permits someone to distribute
binaries without also making source available on their own dime, and it
only applies to noncommercial distribution.  A sale constitutes
commercial distribution.  Therefore, in both a) and b), pointing to
ftp.debian.org does not satisfy the distributor's obligations under the
GPL.

If company A or entity B is actually AFFILIATED with ftp.debian.org, note
that this might be construed as a written offer under GPL section 3b).
However, the fact that you did not call entity B 'Debian' suggests this
is not the real-world case you're interested in.

>  2. Is a) or b) in complience with the DFSG aka OSD?

Mu.  DFSG and OSD apply only to software licenses, not to behaviors.

>  3. Is it a problem if ftp.debian.org removes the source of the same
> version of a package that is used on the cd and installs a newer
> version?  (i.e. source of a package is available, but not exactly
> the proper source).

It is a problem if anyone is using ftp.debian.org to comply with section
3b) of the GPL.  Debian complies with the GPL under section 3a), so it's
only an issue for others trying to reference our archive in this manner. 
Actually, since we're using 3a) for our archive rather than 3b), I guess
no one else can cite 3c) by pointing to our archive anyway, so they're
in violation whether or not we remove some of the referenced source.

>  4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> not in complience with the license terms?

Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
into compliance, or are you asking what can be done to legally force
them to?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpX6Et58cgtW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Martin Schulze]

Chris Lawrence wrote:
> In other words: you have opened a massive can of worms. :-)

*looking innocent*  It wasn't me... :-) But I'd like the issue solved
so there's a clear statement for people, companies and entities to get
pointed to in order to preserve them from license infringement.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
There are lies, statistics and benchmarks.


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

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Martin Schröder]

On 2002-07-18 10:33:15 +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The current status quo:
> 
>a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
>   that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
>   binary packages, no source.  This CD is sold and distributed
>   freely through the internet.
> 
>   When asked about the source of the binary CD, company A points
>   to ftp.debian.org.
> 
>b) An entity B (could be a company, or a single person, or a
>   project) lects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
>   that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
>   binary packages, no source.  This ISO image is distributed
>   freely through the internet and is sold on CD at an exhibition.
> 
>   When asked about the source of the binary CD, B points to
>   ftp.debian.org.
> 
> Questions:
> 
>  1. Is either a) or b) in complience with the GPL (assuming all
> software is licensed using the GNU GPL.

No.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet";>
I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?

You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer
people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in
addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source
is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get
the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently
get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the
job. But not every user is on a network. The rest of the users
are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means
you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will
choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship
one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the
binary in the first place.


Best regards
Martin
-- 
   Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Straße 8, D-28359 Bremen
  Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10


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

Re: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Chris Lawrence]

On Jul 18, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The current status quo:
> 
>a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
>   that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
>   binary packages, no source.  This CD is sold and distributed
>   freely through the internet.
> 
>   When asked about the source of the binary CD, company A points
>   to ftp.debian.org.
> 
>b) An entity B (could be a company, or a single person, or a
>   project) lects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
>   that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
>   binary packages, no source.  This ISO image is distributed
>   freely through the internet and is sold on CD at an exhibition.
> 
>   When asked about the source of the binary CD, B points to
>   ftp.debian.org.
> 
> Questions:
> 
>  1. Is either a) or b) in complience with the GPL (assuming all
> software is licensed using the GNU GPL.
> 
>  2. Is a) or b) in complience with the DFSG aka OSD?
> 
>  3. Is it a problem if ftp.debian.org removes the source of the same
> version of a package that is used on the cd and installs a newer
> version?  (i.e. source of a package is available, but not exactly
> the proper source).
> 
>  4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> not in complience with the license terms?

In case (4), it would be up to the individual copyright holders of the
packages contained on the CDs.

My general thought on 1-3 is that they could be construed as
violations of the license if someone were to push the issue.  If that
were the case, the following policies would probably have to be
adopted by anyone offering CDs of Debian (including myself):

1. Refuse to sell binaries without source.  This makes Debian 100%
more expensive to produce, and possibly means that distributors will
only distribute a subset of Debian to reduce the logistical nightmare
of producing 12 CD-Rs, but the buyer is the one that bears the brunt
of that problem.  (i.e. if Bob wants Debian, he has to have the source
for everything, and I won't sell him anything without that source
included.  Bob Newbie is now paying for 6 to-him coasters in addition
to 6 binary CDs.)

2. Refuse to offer any ISO images on the Internet.  (That means ssh
relativity.phy.olemiss.edu rm -rf /var/www/debian-cd, in English)

This insulates the distributor from liability under the "I got binary
from you 2 years and 364 days ago, so I demand the source" clause of
the GPL, because there's no way the purchaser could get binaries
without source.  It also makes Debian a royal pain in the ass to
distribute at low cost, but that's the legalities of it.  (However,
this is only actionable if a buyer attempts to exercise his rights
under the GPL - unless and until that happens, the distributor is not
violating the license.  He only violates the license if and only if he
fails to meet the buyer's demand for the equivalent source at a
"reasonable" price.  Furthermore, this has never been tested in court
so it is unclear whether providing a later version of the source would
be sufficient, or what a "reasonable" price might be.  For example, if
A distributes Debian without source, and nobody complains that they
didn't get source, A is not violating the GPL per se.)

In other words: you have opened a massive can of worms. :-)


Chris
-- 
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/


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

Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO

[Martin Schulze]

Hi,

a discussion arose recently and I'd like to discuss the outcome and
the way to go.

The current status quo:

   a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
  that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
  binary packages, no source.  This CD is sold and distributed
  freely through the internet.

  When asked about the source of the binary CD, company A points
  to ftp.debian.org.

   b) An entity B (could be a company, or a single person, or a
  project) lects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
  that runs the system (life system).  This ISO only contains
  binary packages, no source.  This ISO image is distributed
  freely through the internet and is sold on CD at an exhibition.

  When asked about the source of the binary CD, B points to
  ftp.debian.org.

Questions:

 1. Is either a) or b) in complience with the GPL (assuming all
software is licensed using the GNU GPL.

 2. Is a) or b) in complience with the DFSG aka OSD?

 3. Is it a problem if ftp.debian.org removes the source of the same
version of a package that is used on the cd and installs a newer
version?  (i.e. source of a package is available, but not exactly
the proper source).

 4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
not in complience with the license terms?

Regards,

Joey

-- 
There are lies, statistics and benchmarks.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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