Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a possible lawsuit. Licenses *are* confusing. Not our fault, nor can we do anything about it; there's a limit to the effectiveness of the anti-lawyer spray we use. Deal with it. Any scenario which appears to contain a license which isn't confusing is one which contains a license you don't understand properly, and should be treated with the utmost suspicion, just like a perpetual motion machine. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it in the archives. Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first? I didn't find it helpful in this case. 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation is a starting point, if you translate it to documents. I think it depends whether the first work could be replaced with an equivalent without requiring changes to the later one. Oh, thanks. This is a criterion that can be well used for documentation (as opposed to the software-centric , | depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, | function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics | of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). ` AIUI, the GPL can't override copyright law and it only grants extra permissions. It doesn't take any away. A text published with no licence defaults to all rights reserved usually. Thanks, that also made things clearer to me. It sounds so obvious once someone said it... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Thank you, Andrew, Michael, MJ and Raul for your comments. I was asking this question because I got involved in a license discussion with an author who published a preliminary version of a document on a preliminary licsense, the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. During the discussion, he asked for a recommendation for a free license for his text, should he wish to distribute it. He seemed to be concerned about other people making unfair use of the text (without having any real clue about what is fair use probably). And he was clearly looking for something that would bind everybody to use the same free conditions for texts based on it: He was objecting to putting it into public domain. I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a text under GPL. But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a possible lawsuit. Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? With such a license I would hope that we could convince individual authors to switch from GFDL to this GPL-doc (of course not the FSF...). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Frank Küster wrote: I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a text under GPL. But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a possible lawsuit. Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? You could (if you removed the GPL preamble as required by the FSF), but the resulting license is very likely to be incompatible with the GPL. I strongly recommend just using the standard GPL. If you really feel that such clarifications are necessary, you could add a (non-binding) clarification stating that program corresponds to text and object code corresponds to typeset form, and add an exception to any clauses you don't care about. However, I don't think that's a good idea, and I don't think people will be confused by a GPLed document. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, ... This isn't really the right forum for that. Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? It would be possible (see GPL FAQ cited previously), but I think it's superfluous because the GPL's definition of Program is flexible enough to include documents. It's undesirable because GPL-doc would be incompatible with GPL unless you make specific provision for a LGPL-style upgrade. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? Yes, it would, but I can't find details of a licensing forum on their pages. Where is it? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non-public enquiry service, as far as I can tell. It does not seem to publish performance statistics and my experience has been disappointing. The FSF publications about documentation licensing have been getting worse, too, as they dig in instead of discussing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, ... This isn't really the right forum for that. Well, hm, yes, no. Indeed the case that made me post this question dealt with a new document. But on the other hand, I have a problem as a Debian developer with existing documents in existing packages: Namely that I have to approach upstream authors and tell them We don't think the GFDL you have chosen for your document is a free license. The logical question they ask me is What else should I use as a license? Therefore, I assume that more maintainers will get to this question once sarge is released. We should be prepared and have a good answer to it. And it *might* even be that having a good answer to it will increase our chances to get FSF to relisence their stuff: It's not only about the FSF, but also about individual contributors who might put some pressure on them; and they might be more inclined to do this when they see us as a constructive participant of the discussion¹ Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? Do you expect that they would recommend anything else but GFDL? Or if there are differing opinions there, that there will be more than just one more flamewar about the GFDL? Furthermore, I am a Debian developer who is primarily skilled for doing my work on my packages, and who sometimes has a good relation to upstream authors. But I don't have much experience with legal considerations, and I wouldn't want to come out of such a discussion with some recommendation to an upstream author, only to find later that the license isn't approved by debian-legal - for reasons I understand, but couldn't find myself. Therefore I am asking here for advice and help. Regards, Frank ¹even if in particular their cases, the obvious alternative is the license of the documented program, GPL -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? It would be possible (see GPL FAQ cited previously), but I think it's superfluous because the GPL's definition of Program is flexible enough to include documents. It might be flexible enough from a legal point of view. But then, it seems the minds of authors aren't always flexible enough. Perhaps I would have to help them bend and stretch... It's undesirable because GPL-doc would be incompatible with GPL unless you make specific provision for a LGPL-style upgrade. For real standalone documentation, I don't know wether this would be a problem in practice. Hm. I should read about compatibility of GPL'ed code with BSD or artistic licensed code. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. Literally 'no', but more practically 'kinda'. More precisely, there is a *vast* amount of precedent and case law on the subject of what does and does not constitute derivation in literature. It doesn't qualify as 'established criteria' because this is highly subjective. Courts try to be consistent but ultimately there are limits. Since software is usually classified as literature by law, we (and the courts) usually refer to this stuff when talking about derivation in software - there's far less case law about software directly, but the same ideas are applied. So it's kinda similar-in-reverse - because software is like literature, not the other way around. Music rather than literature, but here's a couple of crazy cases where something strangely was considered infringement via derivation: http://www.benedict.com/audio/harrison/harrison.aspx And where something equally strangely was not: http://www.benedict.com/audio/crew/crew.aspx You probably won't have much luck reconciling these two decisions on anything but a purely subjective basis. But what if there are extensive references to specific parts of the appendix in the text? What if it is a chapter in that book? You *really* want to feed that sort of thing to a lawyer of some kind. It's borderline so it's going to be driven by applicable case law, which means proper research. We can't really deal with that sort of thing. 2. I fail to find the right technical or juridical terms here, but I guess in most jurisdictions it is allowed to cite other texts, or to publish a book that discusses some text in detail (like interpretation of a poem, or detailed rebuttal of a scientific paper). In such a case, the book would not exist without prior existence of the original text. Would such a thing be regarded a derived work, and would therefore a text published under GPL impose restrictions that would not hold for a text published without a license, simply in printed form? Citation (as used in research papers) is not derivation, nor is quotation (as used in literary criticism) for the purpose of commentary, because the research and literary lobbies have a moderate amount of weight. Anything more *might* be. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Hi, please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it in the archives. Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort), is licensed under GPL, with an additional text stating what the preferred form for modification is (say, LaTeX or docbook). As I understand it, anybody can take the text and publish it as a printed book, as long as he also prints where the source code can be found (GPL clause 3.b or 3.c). If he creates a derived work - for example by extending each chapter, but keeping the structure and most of the original text - he has to license that under GPL, too (and thus provide the source code). I have two questions 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. I assume that if a book on the technical aspects of computer typesetting would include, as an appendix, a GPL'ed text on typography, this would be only aggregation. At least if typographical questions don't play a role in the rest of the text. But what if there are extensive references to specific parts of the appendix in the text? What if it is a chapter in that book? 2. I fail to find the right technical or juridical terms here, but I guess in most jurisdictions it is allowed to cite other texts, or to publish a book that discusses some text in detail (like interpretation of a poem, or detailed rebuttal of a scientific paper). In such a case, the book would not exist without prior existence of the original text. Would such a thing be regarded a derived work, and would therefore a text published under GPL impose restrictions that would not hold for a text published without a license, simply in printed form? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it in the archives. Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first? I'll answer because I doubt the hard-pressed FSF enquiry service will give answers quickly on this discouraged use of GPL. Their FAQ about use for documentation has recently been made worse, I notice. (Also now in sans-serif. Someone send FSF on a typography course.) 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation is a starting point, if you translate it to documents. I think it depends whether the first work could be replaced with an equivalent without requiring changes to the later one. [...] Would such a thing be regarded a derived work, and would therefore a text published under GPL impose restrictions that would not hold for a text published without a license, simply in printed form? I think it would be a derived work, but you might not need to satisfy the GPL, the same as you don't need to satisfy a copyright me, all rights reserved in some cases. I don't know about your law, but blanket permission to copy a bit for the purpose of commentary is in English law (CDPA Pt1 Ch3). I think the Berne Convention means similar provisions are in most laws, but the exact extent varies. AIUI, the GPL can't override copyright law and it only grants extra permissions. It doesn't take any away. A text published with no licence defaults to all rights reserved usually. Hope that helps. I am not a lawyer. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD, I haven't been actively engaged with debian-legal for very long, and my interpretation of the meaning of derivative work and its consequences for the scope of the GPL appears to contrast rather strongly with the FSF's and with some other debian-legal participants'. But I can point you to some US case law, and statutes elsewhere, which I believe to be relevant. Perhaps this will be helpful to you in assessing the quality of the local conventional wisdom. On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:49:08 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort), is licensed under GPL, with an additional text stating what the preferred form for modification is (say, LaTeX or docbook). As I understand it, anybody can take the text and publish it as a printed book, as long as he also prints where the source code can be found (GPL clause 3.b or 3.c). If he creates a derived work - for example by extending each chapter, but keeping the structure and most of the original text - he has to license that under GPL, too (and thus provide the source code). That's correct. Publishing this book, or in general any action that would normally require a copyright license and isn't accompanied by a strong claim of alternate licensing terms, is fairly strong evidence of acceptance through conduct of the offer of contract contained in the GPL, in any jurisdiction where a non-exclusive copyright license can be created by this form of acceptance. That would include any jurisdiction where any retail software license is enforceable. There is a non-zero threshold for evidence of acceptance, however. See Specht v. Netscape, which held that a mere browse-wrap license on downloadable software was similar to an open box containing copies of a free newspaper, and that merely taking and using that newspaper doesn't prove acceptance of the attached license. Picking up a copy of a free newspaper doesn't convey license to republish its contents, however; so publishing printed copies of a GPL document is clearly well over this threshold. Judging from the two cases I have been able to find in which the GPL has come up in US court (namely, Progress Software v. MySQL and Planetary Motion v. Techplosion), there is no reason to think that there is any defect in the GPL as an enforceable offer of contract regarding material on which the copyright holder retains its ownership. Specifically, publication of a work with the GPL attached is not release into the public domain and does consitute use in commerce, according to an argument in Planetary Motion (a valid appellate precedent) which appears to me also to prove sufficient consideration on both sides to form a bilateral contract. Notwithstanding the public claims of the FSF's general counsel, there is no such thing as a non-contract license in any jurisdiction I have heard named. With help from other debian-legal participants, I've verified this assertion against statute and/or precedent in at least the US, Canada, UK, Belgium, and Germany. I have also asked [EMAIL PROTECTED] about their stance, and received nothing but pointers to an interview with the general counsel and the 1709 Statute of Anne. The FSF's general counsel submitted an expert witness affidavit in the MySQL case, but it makes no reference to relevant modern legal precedent. In general, this means that a claim of copyright infringement cannot succeed unless the copyright holder can demonstrate, in addition to the usual criteria for infringement, that the defendant either exceeded the scope of the license granted in the contract or breached the contract to an extent that justifies rescission of the license. This is consistent with the judge's ruling in Progress Software vs. MySQL, in which MySQL did not succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction on copyright grounds. I have two questions 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. I assume that if a book on the technical aspects of computer typesetting would include, as an appendix, a GPL'ed text on typography, this would be only aggregation. At least if typographical questions don't play a role in the rest of the text. But what if there are extensive references to specific parts of the appendix in the text? What if it is a chapter in that book? I'm going to try to answer the question I think you are asking: Joe-Bob writes a book about GPL Work X, on which the copyright is held by Sue. He includes Work X as Chapter X (or Appendix X) of his book, and makes extensive references to Work X in Chapter Y (and possibly every other chapter). Can Sue successfully sue Joe-Bob to either block distribution of the book or to require release of the 'source code' for the entire book under
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 07:44:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Any given country's implementation of the Berne Convention may vary somewhat, but the US statute (at least as of 1986) and the case law I have seen are consistent with the interpretation that compilations (or the subset collective works) are a disjoint category from derivative works. See 17 USC 101, and compare the UK CDPA sections 3 (1) (a) (a table or compilation is a subtype of literary work) and 21 (adaptations are defined to cover essentially the same scope as Berne Convention derivative works). The Berne Convention does not appear to use the term derivative at all. The only place I can find that uses related worde (derived, and collection) is Article 14 and 14ter, in reference to (derived) cinematographic production based on other kinds of works and (collection) the collection of fees. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) Furthermore, if 17 USC 101 is a basis for collective works being disjoint from derivative works then it's also a basis for computer program being disjoint from both. Which is clearly not the way a court would treat computer programs. I think that the mathematical concept of a disjoint set misconstrues the nature of legal definitions. The difference is more one of focus. There is no need to believe that there is some precise legal difference between an anthology and a work based on one or more preexisting works. Finally, I agree that linking doesn't create a derivative work. But I also feel that this statement about linking can be misleading. Before a program can be successfully linked with some other body of work, it is already a derivative work, or not a derivative work, of this other body of work. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:56:25PM -0500, I wrote: The Berne Convention does not appear to use the term derivative at all. The only place I can find that uses related worde (derived, and collection) is Article 14 and 14ter, in reference to (derived) cinematographic production based on other kinds of works and (collection) the collection of fees. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) Oops, I missed the use of collection in section 2bis of the Berne Convention. This doesn't change my understanding of the issue, but I should mention it, for completeness. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
