Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 08:07:51AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > >Now I have to debate (with myself) whether to prune the cc list -- I forget >the original post -- was it really this widespread? It's just bullshit trolling. Multiple different From: addresses, all sent via cock.li. Easily blocked/ignored. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com There's no sensation to compare with this Suspended animation, A state of bliss
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).
On Sunday, May 05, 2019 12:51:15 AM vsnsdual...@redchan.it wrote: > Bar rules do not allow lawyers to serve under a non-lawyer > in > an organization, and the organization was essentially a pro-bono law > firm > (which really needed a attorney in it's ranks...) That's interesting, but (off the point of this email exchange), it puzzles me -- many corporations headed by non-lawyers have lawyers on staff, so I'm guessing that the statement you made applies only to organizations like law firms, or, the lawyers on the staff of a non-law corporation are in something at least a little different than the normal employer / employee relationship. (PS: I stand corrected on Kuhn being a lawyer -- thanks for the correction.) Now I have to debate (with myself) whether to prune the cc list -- I forget the original post -- was it really this widespread?
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On 2019-01-28 15:14, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:55:15PM +, mick crane wrote:
[...]
What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter
(rescind) the license
You'd have to explain what you mean by "rescind" here: the license
to the current version or the one to the future versions. Details
would depend on the license's text. GPLV3 is pretty explicit on
that:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term
of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the
stated conditions are met.
Any questions?
nope
they would have to get the agreement of all the previous authors
whose work, released under the GPL, they used in their code.
This is a whole other kettle of fish, and you shouldn't mix it with
the above -- this will result in impenetrable fog.
This concerns the case when a project wants to change the license:
suppose it is "GPLV2 only" and the project leaders would like to
relicense it to "GPLV3". This would run against the "GPLV2 only"
terms, so it is only possible if /all copyright holders/ agree.
In some cases it's easy (as when there's just one copyright holder)
in others (prominent example: the Linux kernel) each contributor
retains the copyright to her own contribution... a change is
practically impossible. But some (admittedly smaller at that time)
projects have managed to pull that off [1].
The normal case is that when the original authors/company would
like to do something like that, they expect a CLA ("Contributor's
licence agreement") from their contributors (but that has to be
done in advance, of course).
Which I can't see happening.
Sometimes it happens (see OSM example below)
Cheers
Was Smoothwall I think wanted to make proprietary and not release the
code which resulted in IPCop.
[1] https://blog.openstreetmap.org/tag/license-change/
-- t
--
Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Hi, Ivan Ivanov wrote: > Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare > license and is revocable by the grantor. Do you mean https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/24/209 ? The GPL does not say that it can be rescinded at the will of the grantor. In GPLv3 it is explicitely stated: 2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. Note the word "irrevocable". So i think GPLv3 is safe. In GPLv2, the preamble states intentions which clearly contradict a reserved right to revoke the once given license. The TERMS AND CONDITIONS paragraph 4 say that if "you" lose the license rights because of violations, "parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance". This expresses a clear promise not to revoke the license from well behaving license takers. Next the article quotes a conversation with Eben Moglen, lawyer of the Free Software Foundation. The only substance i see there is a reference to the principle that gifts can be demanded back under some circumstances. In german law it is because of the giver becomming needy or because the receiver shows outraging unthankfulness (e.g. an attempt to murder the giver). I sincerely doubt that GPL is a gift in the sense of german BGB 516 - 534. Especially paragraph 517 says that waiving income in favor of somebody else is not such a gift. The large number of license takers makes the situation quite different from the one expected by german law. Further a demand to return the gift because of neediness would depend on a binding offer from a third party to pay money if the software is not under GPL any more. I think not even Microsoft Inc. would make such an offer, nowadays. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:55:15PM +, mick crane wrote:
[...]
> What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter
> (rescind) the license
You'd have to explain what you mean by "rescind" here: the license
to the current version or the one to the future versions. Details
would depend on the license's text. GPLV3 is pretty explicit on
that:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term
of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the
stated conditions are met.
Any questions?
> they would have to get the agreement of all the previous authors
> whose work, released under the GPL, they used in their code.
This is a whole other kettle of fish, and you shouldn't mix it with
the above -- this will result in impenetrable fog.
This concerns the case when a project wants to change the license:
suppose it is "GPLV2 only" and the project leaders would like to
relicense it to "GPLV3". This would run against the "GPLV2 only"
terms, so it is only possible if /all copyright holders/ agree.
In some cases it's easy (as when there's just one copyright holder)
in others (prominent example: the Linux kernel) each contributor
retains the copyright to her own contribution... a change is
practically impossible. But some (admittedly smaller at that time)
projects have managed to pull that off [1].
The normal case is that when the original authors/company would
like to do something like that, they expect a CLA ("Contributor's
licence agreement") from their contributors (but that has to be
done in advance, of course).
> Which I can't see happening.
Sometimes it happens (see OSM example below)
Cheers
[1] https://blog.openstreetmap.org/tag/license-change/
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Monday, January 28, 2019 04:21:11 AM Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-28, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret > >> laws and take legal positions for various reasons, often to further > >> their own or their client's interests, and then are willing to fight > >> the legal battle that may ensue. A lawyer expressing an opinion does > >> not make that opinion correct / legal. > > Earthshaking! I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not. It wasn't intended to be earthshaking, but I don't think everybody realizes that. > (Editor's note: there exist lawyers who are not amoral > shysters and who even devote themselves to just causes.) Not sure who the editor is ;-) (Wish I had an editor ;-) I guess if I edited the paragraph quoted above (which I wrote), I'd: * replace "often to further" with "sometimes to further" (at least with respect to their own interests, my understanding is that, in most cases, your lawyer is charged with furthering your interests (if you are their client) * replace "are willing to fight the legal battle" with "may be willing to fight the legal battle" (and maybe only as long as their client pays them?) > I guess the following is pertinent: > > https://hackaday.com/2018/09/27/can-you-take-back-open-source-code/ Read the article, skimming the comments, nothing to say at this time. --< snip >--
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Joe writes: > The whole point of the GPL, of course, was that a Random Large > Software Company couldn't just buy up code and remove it from the > market. Even if all the copyright holders were paid enough to remove > their current code from an open source project, they could not remove > previous versions, and anyone who wished to do so was free to continue > development. That is true of other Open Source licenses such as the BSD license. The point of the GPL is that if you extend a work distributed to you under the terms of the GPL you are obligated to distribute your extensions only under the terms of the GPL (though you are free to not distribute them at all). This is not true of the BSD license: you are free to distribute derivatives of BSD licensed software under any terms at all. This was routinely done: I paid $1000 for BSD-OS for my first 386-based computer. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
mick writes: > What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter > (rescind) the license they would have to get the agreement of all the > previous authors whose work, released under the GPL, they used in > their code. Which I can't see happening. "Rescind" implies that the copyright owner can inform people who have already received copies of the work under the terms of the GPL that the rights granted to them by the GPL have been revoked and that they are no longer free to redistribute the work under the terms of the GPL. This cannot happen because the GPL contains no clause permitting it. Think about it. If a copyright owner could revoke licenses arbitrarily despite the licenses not containing clauses permitting them to do so no copyright license would be worth anything at all. Software copyright licenses (real ones, not the "licenses" that products from Microsoft et al come with) sometimes do include revocation clauses. Such clauses always lay out in great detail the conditions under which revocation is possible. A copyright owner can, of course, start distributing copies of a work in which they own all the copyrights under different terms: this is what happens when a formerly closed source work is "open sourced". Obviously, if the work contains stuff in which others own copyright, all parties must agree to the change. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:27:04 +0100 wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:39AM +, mick crane wrote: > > [...] > > > I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very > > tricky to navigate. > > I've been following this thread, and I think the GPL is much simpler > than that: > > (1) use: always > (2) share (i.e. give to others, distribute, pack up in a bigger > distro): you are bound by the GPL, that means you've to make the > source available to your recipients, give them the same GPL rights) > (3) modify: as soon as you distribute modified versions, you've to >make those available under the same terms as the GPL. > > Of course, if you own the copyright to the software itself (there's no > such thing as to "own" "the software", viz. this term is so ambiguous > as to be worthless), i.e. you wrote it, you paid someone to write it > under a contract which gives you the copyright, etc., then you're not > that much bound by (3). This is e.g. the basis for such things like > the combined licenses, where the copyright owner has a commercial > variant for those (presumably paying) customers who don't want to > be bound by the terms of the GPL. Ghostscript [1] is a prominent > example. > > The trick with (2) is that you, as a "receiver" of the softare, don't > have any rights to distribute it [2]; you are /granted/ those rights > by the issuer /if/ you comply with the terms of the GPL. This is the > implicit contract you're entering, whenever you /distribute/ the > software (or a modified version). > > This is the "copyleft" hack contained in the GPL. > > That said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV. > > [1] https://www.ghostscript.com/license.html > [2] That's by plain and simple copyright law. > The whole point of the GPL, of course, was that a Random Large Software Company couldn't just buy up code and remove it from the market. Even if all the copyright holders were paid enough to remove their current code from an open source project, they could not remove previous versions, and anyone who wished to do so was free to continue development. If that isn't true then it's Game Over. -- Joe
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On 2019-01-28 12:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:39AM +, mick crane wrote: [...] I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very tricky to navigate. I've been following this thread, and I think the GPL is much simpler than that: (1) use: always (2) share (i.e. give to others, distribute, pack up in a bigger distro): you are bound by the GPL, that means you've to make the source available to your recipients, give them the same GPL rights) (3) modify: as soon as you distribute modified versions, you've to make those available under the same terms as the GPL. Of course, if you own the copyright to the software itself (there's no such thing as to "own" "the software", viz. this term is so ambiguous as to be worthless), i.e. you wrote it, you paid someone to write it under a contract which gives you the copyright, etc., then you're not that much bound by (3). This is e.g. the basis for such things like the combined licenses, where the copyright owner has a commercial variant for those (presumably paying) customers who don't want to be bound by the terms of the GPL. Ghostscript [1] is a prominent example. The trick with (2) is that you, as a "receiver" of the softare, don't have any rights to distribute it [2]; you are /granted/ those rights by the issuer /if/ you comply with the terms of the GPL. This is the implicit contract you're entering, whenever you /distribute/ the software (or a modified version). This is the "copyleft" hack contained in the GPL. That said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV. [1] https://www.ghostscript.com/license.html [2] That's by plain and simple copyright law. Cheers -- t What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter (rescind) the license they would have to get the agreement of all the previous authors whose work, released under the GPL, they used in their code. Which I can't see happening. mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
In article <201901271924.17175.rhkra...@gmail.com> you write: >Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me only, >and my reply, of course, then went to him only. > >On Sunday, January 27, 2019 10:06:46 AM Ivan Ivanov wrote: >> Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare >> license and is revocable by the grantor. Search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl" >> online to find his messages which prove that, he is a lawyer and has >> investigated this subject very well. I am CC'ing him in case you'd >> like to request more information. So if you didn't like the Code of >> Conduct covertly accepted behind the scenes against your will, and >> maybe some other questionable political decisions in technical >> projects > >> (e.g. the recent removal of useful "weboob" package which >> have been a part of Debian for 8 years but got removed just because >> some mad SJWs suddenly got offended at its' name) - well you know what >> to do, and maybe vsnsdualce will be happy to help with your case free >> of charge. Ranting about SJWs? Check. Ignore this person. >I *might* go read some of the stuff by vsnsdualce, but the Weboob situation is >not an example of a (free or GPL) license being rescinded. (You didn't quite >say it was, but one could infer that is what you are trying to say by its >inclusion in the same paragraph.) > >Whatever license and rights conveyed by that license still exist, but Debian >(not the copyright owner) has decided no longer to include that in what they >distribute. > >You can still get the Weboob package from other sources (unless they all >disappear) and use the Weboob package in accordance with the license terms for >the package you find. Right. This is an irrelevant side-argument. >Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret laws and >take legal positions for various reasons, often to further their own or their >client's interests, and then are willing to fight the legal battle that may >ensue. A lawyer expressing an opinion does not make that opinion correct / >legal. Correct. Lawyers' opinions are typically estimates of what *might* happen, informed by their training and background. Until there is precedent from actual cases, there's not much more to go on. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:39AM +, mick crane wrote: [...] > I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very > tricky to navigate. I've been following this thread, and I think the GPL is much simpler than that: (1) use: always (2) share (i.e. give to others, distribute, pack up in a bigger distro): you are bound by the GPL, that means you've to make the source available to your recipients, give them the same GPL rights) (3) modify: as soon as you distribute modified versions, you've to make those available under the same terms as the GPL. Of course, if you own the copyright to the software itself (there's no such thing as to "own" "the software", viz. this term is so ambiguous as to be worthless), i.e. you wrote it, you paid someone to write it under a contract which gives you the copyright, etc., then you're not that much bound by (3). This is e.g. the basis for such things like the combined licenses, where the copyright owner has a commercial variant for those (presumably paying) customers who don't want to be bound by the terms of the GPL. Ghostscript [1] is a prominent example. The trick with (2) is that you, as a "receiver" of the softare, don't have any rights to distribute it [2]; you are /granted/ those rights by the issuer /if/ you comply with the terms of the GPL. This is the implicit contract you're entering, whenever you /distribute/ the software (or a modified version). This is the "copyleft" hack contained in the GPL. That said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV. [1] https://www.ghostscript.com/license.html [2] That's by plain and simple copyright law. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?#
On 2019-01-28, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 07:24:17PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >>Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me only, >>and my reply, of course, then went to him only. > > How strange; both that Ivan would mail you privately, and also I wonder > what the context was that prompted Ben to post the message starting this > thread in the first place. > > When considering what is possible or not in law, especially when more > than one self-professed legal expert (vsnsdualce?) are in conflict with > one another, it sometimes helps to look at what has *actually happened*. > I don't believe that any court has yet ruled to support the revocation > of the GPL. When threats of such a thing come from Eric Raymond of all > people, I make sure I put plenty of salt on my shopping list. > Threat doesn't seem like the appropriate word for whatever's coming from Eric Raymond concerning the matter.
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On 2019-01-28 09:21, Curt wrote: these years), and, well, all hell has broken loose. I'm uncertain how this all articulates into a coherent whole. Apparently the worry (or threat?) is a disgruntled hacker (doubtless one of the old male dinosaurs), ejected for violating the new LGBT-friendly CoC, might rescind the license grant for his code (a prospect Raymond doesn't find judicially implausible). I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very tricky to navigate. Think the upshot is you can sell it or give it away but you have to make the source available and include this license. So I guess you would have to go back to the people wrote the older bits of code that was released under the GPL and any new stuff that includes/is based on the older code and doesn't work without is covered by the GPL. ie you can sell it or give it away but you have to make the source available and include this license. mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?#
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 07:24:17PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me only, and my reply, of course, then went to him only. How strange; both that Ivan would mail you privately, and also I wonder what the context was that prompted Ben to post the message starting this thread in the first place. When considering what is possible or not in law, especially when more than one self-professed legal expert (vsnsdualce?) are in conflict with one another, it sometimes helps to look at what has *actually happened*. I don't believe that any court has yet ruled to support the revocation of the GPL. When threats of such a thing come from Eric Raymond of all people, I make sure I put plenty of salt on my shopping list. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On 2019-01-28, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret laws >> and take legal positions for various reasons, often to further their own >> or their client's interests, and then are willing to fight the legal >> battle that may ensue. A lawyer expressing an opinion does not make that >> opinion correct / legal. Earthshaking! (Editor's note: there exist lawyers who are not amoral shysters and who even devote themselves to just causes.) I guess the following is pertinent: https://hackaday.com/2018/09/27/can-you-take-back-open-source-code/ REPUTATIONAL LOSSES So if a developer is free to license their code in diametrically opposed ways (simultaneously closed and open source), and it’s acknowledged that in the absence of a Contributor License Agreement they retain the uncontested ownership of any code they write, the situation becomes tricky. Does it not follow that they have the right to walk back a promise to make their source code open, if a scenario presents itself in which the author feels it’s no longer appropriate? Eric S. Raymond, one of the founders of the Open Source Initiative and author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar believes they may have that right. In a post to the Linux Kernel Mailing list, Eric specifically addresses the threat some developers have made about attempting to pull their code from the kernel: First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.’s opt-out of the “moral rights” clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case. https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/23/212 Anyway, it appears there's a new Linux CoC (providing for a "harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation"), Linus is stepping aside to work on his relational problems (with regrets for being a dyed-in-the-wool asshole all these years), and, well, all hell has broken loose. I'm uncertain how this all articulates into a coherent whole. Apparently the worry (or threat?) is a disgruntled hacker (doubtless one of the old male dinosaurs), ejected for violating the new LGBT-friendly CoC, might rescind the license grant for his code (a prospect Raymond doesn't find judicially implausible).
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 07:24:17 PM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me > only, and my reply, of course, then went to him only. > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 10:06:46 AM Ivan Ivanov wrote: > > Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare > > license and is revocable by the grantor. Search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl" > > online to find his messages which prove that, he is a lawyer and has > > investigated this subject very well. I am CC'ing him in case you'd > > like to request more information. So if you didn't like the Code of > > Conduct covertly accepted behind the scenes against your will, and > > maybe some other questionable political decisions in technical > > projects ... > I *might* go read some of the stuff by vsnsdualce, but the Weboob situation > is not an example of a (free or GPL) license being rescinded. (You didn't > quite say it was, but one could infer that is what you are trying to say > by its inclusion in the same paragraph.) Ok, I went and read a few things by "vsnsdualce" re the GPL, in particular: http://readlist.com/lists/gentoo.org/gentoo-user/42/213256.html And from that, I went to: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 It seems clear that this is one of those things that I talked about in my previous last paragraph (the aside, still quoted below) -- vsnsdualce is stating his opinion / taking a position that is in opposition to the postions / opinions of other lawyers. I don't know how far he is willing to go to try to confirm his position, but until a court case or something similar (and probably appeals) decides the issue, there are two opinions. If I had to guess / be which would prevail, I would bet on the side of copyleft.org who, in a way are the successors (mcow) to the original author(s) of the GPL. (And Bradley Kuhn is a lawyer -- my older mind can't remember if he was the lawyer who argued (and lost) a previous free software case (don't remember the details) in front of the US Supreme Court. (Sometimes referred to as "the supremes", but they don't really sing that well (well, to be fair, I guess I never heard them sing ;-) Even if he was the guy that lost that case (I'm fairly sure it was someone else), he is certainly a very experienced lawyer, and very familiar with the issues around this license. I would trust his opinion more that I would "vsnsdualce"'s. ... > > Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret laws > and take legal positions for various reasons, often to further their own > or their client's interests, and then are willing to fight the legal > battle that may ensue. A lawyer expressing an opinion does not make that > opinion correct / legal.
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me only, and my reply, of course, then went to him only. On Sunday, January 27, 2019 10:06:46 AM Ivan Ivanov wrote: > Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare > license and is revocable by the grantor. Search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl" > online to find his messages which prove that, he is a lawyer and has > investigated this subject very well. I am CC'ing him in case you'd > like to request more information. So if you didn't like the Code of > Conduct covertly accepted behind the scenes against your will, and > maybe some other questionable political decisions in technical > projects > (e.g. the recent removal of useful "weboob" package which > have been a part of Debian for 8 years but got removed just because > some mad SJWs suddenly got offended at its' name) - well you know what > to do, and maybe vsnsdualce will be happy to help with your case free > of charge. I *might* go read some of the stuff by vsnsdualce, but the Weboob situation is not an example of a (free or GPL) license being rescinded. (You didn't quite say it was, but one could infer that is what you are trying to say by its inclusion in the same paragraph.) Whatever license and rights conveyed by that license still exist, but Debian (not the copyright owner) has decided no longer to include that in what they distribute. You can still get the Weboob package from other sources (unless they all disappear) and use the Weboob package in accordance with the license terms for the package you find. Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret laws and take legal positions for various reasons, often to further their own or their client's interests, and then are willing to fight the legal battle that may ensue. A lawyer expressing an opinion does not make that opinion correct / legal.
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Richard writes: > IANAL, but ok. But what defines a 'legitimate owner'? No ownership > rights are generally transferred with a piece of software, right? A copy under USA copyright law is a tangible object. When you buy a CD or other embodiment of a work you own that object and have all the rights of ownership. Ownership of a copy --a tangible object-- is entirely different from ownership of the right to make and distribute additional copies of an object embodying material protected by copyright. Copyright law does not limit your rights in that object. You own it. You do not own the right to make and distribute copies of that object. However, USA copyright law automatically grants you the right to make any transient or temporary copies that might be necessary in order to use it. You have the right to transfer ownership of the object to someone else, but if you do so you must, of course, destroy the aforementioned temporary copies. > ... and I understand that if there's no consideration paid, there's no > legal contract, right? "Contract"? If someone makes a gift of an object to you expecting no compensation, you still own it. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 03:45:14 PM Ivan Ivanov wrote: > IANAL either but "vsnsdualce" is a lawyer and provided a lot of > information on how the GPL could be revoked. Maybe the laws, e.g. USA > laws, are more powerful than your EULAs and EULA-like stuff. > > If you really would like to find out the truth instead of drinking > kool-aid calming yourself that "nah it can't be revoked because I > wouldn't like that" then please search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl" > messages. You cc'ed me (which I responded to you privately about), but now I'll expound to say that was not my position -- I merely pointed out that one (?) way to seemingly get around the do not revoke meme would be, as an owner of the software (not the owner of a copy of the software or owner of a license to use the software (unless that license allowed what I'm going to mention)) is to modify the software and issue the new version under different terms. To all: please don't cc me unless there is some good special reason -- it makes me feel that you are somehow personally attributing to me (or arguing with me?) about something in the post. regards, Randy Kramer > My personal point of view, which may be incorrect because IANAL, is > that the forced introduction of Code of Conducts was quite similar to > one-sided modification of license agreement and should render it > invalid. > > Best regards, > Ivan Ivanov >
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 02:41:49 PM Richard Hector wrote: > On 28/01/19 3:32 AM, John Hasler wrote: > > Note that under USA law the right to *use* (including the right to make > > such transient and temporary copies as might be required for effective > > use) a copy of a program of which one is a legitimate owner is automatic > > and requires no license. > > IANAL, but ok. But what defines a 'legitimate owner'? No ownership > rights are generally transferred with a piece of software, right? IANAL either (aside: when I first saw that acronym, a long time ago, I thought (from the context) that someone was trying to say they were not a liar -- to a certain extent, I sometime consider the two words synonymous ;-) Anyway, I don't think "legitimate owner" (of the software) is quite the right phrase, it is more like "legitimate owner of a copy of the software" and / or the "legitimate owner of a license (or right) to use the software". (And, yes, consideration is required (afaik), but it is not necessarily financial -- it could be (I think) agreement to uphold the terms of the license.
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
rhkra...@gmail.com writes: > […] I believe that the original author of a package could do something > like create further modifications to the code and create a non-free > version of the code. Yes. The _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License_ guide https://copyleft.org/guide/> addresses that possibility: The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect. The copyright holders have the right to relicense the same work under different licenses […], or to stop distributing the GPLv2’d version (assuming GPLv2 §3(b) was never used), but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already granted. In fact, when an entity loses their right to copy, modify and distribute GPL’d software, it is because of their *own actions*, not that of the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decide when GPLv2 §4 termination occurs (if ever); rather, the actions of the licensee determine that. https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-510007.1> So, the copyright holders can make new releases without granting GPL freedoms. But they have no way to revoke the GPL freedoms already granted to a person in a specific past release of the work. -- \“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” —Upton Sinclair | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
rhkra...@gmail.com writes: > […] I believe that the original author of a package could do something > like create further modifications to the code and create a non-free > version of the code. Yes. The _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License_ guide https://copyleft.org/guide/> addresses that possibility: The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect. The copyright holders have the right to relicense the same work under different licenses […], or to stop distributing the GPLv2’d version (assuming GPLv2 §3(b) was never used), but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already granted. In fact, when an entity loses their right to copy, modify and distribute GPL’d software, it is because of their *own actions*, not that of the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decide when GPLv2 §4 termination occurs (if ever); rather, the actions of the licensee determine that. https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-510007.1> So, the copyright holder can make new releases without granting GPL freedoms. But they have no way to revoke the GPL freedoms already granted to a person in a specific past release of the work. -- \“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” —Upton Sinclair | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On 28/01/19 3:32 AM, John Hasler wrote: > Note that under USA law the right to *use* (including the right to make > such transient and temporary copies as might be required for effective > use) a copy of a program of which one is a legitimate owner is automatic > and requires no license. IANAL, but ok. But what defines a 'legitimate owner'? No ownership rights are generally transferred with a piece of software, right? > Thus if someone gives (or sells) a copy ... and I understand that if there's no consideration paid, there's no legal contract, right? I'm paraphrasing from recent comments by someone who claims to be a lawyer, posting on The Register. They also claim that promissory estoppel claims are generally hard to win. NB I'm in New Zealand, so whatever laws apply here may well be different anyway. Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Hi, Ben Finney wrote: > > In other words: Any copyright holder can *say* they wish to > > retroactively revoke the GNU GPL to some party. Well, everybody is free to express wishes. But a granted license with no applicable revocation clause is irrevocable. The copyright holders alltogether are entitled to grant any license they can agree on (and that is not illegal or legally void). E.g. they can grant non-GPL licenses for their GPLed software. What they cannot do is to revoke granted GPL on published versions. rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe that the > original author of a package could do something like create further > modifications to the code and create a non-free version of the code. An example is the cdrecord-wodim fork. The copyright holders did not release newer versions of cdrecord under GPL. So some concerned Debian developers used an earlier GPLed version as base of their fork named wodim. > Assuming that is correct, people using (or basing modifications) on the > (presumably) older free version could continue to use and develop based on > that, but would not have rights to that new non-free version. I agree and practical examples show that we are not alone. The copyright of the original authors remains, so that the forkers cannot change the old license until they replaced all copyrightable imaterial of the original authors. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Note that under USA law the right to *use* (including the right to make such transient and temporary copies as might be required for effective use) a copy of a program of which one is a legitimate owner is automatic and requires no license. Thus if someone gives (or sells) a copy of a GPL licensed program to you, you are not affected by the GPL until you make a copy of your copy and then give or sell it to someone else (or retain a copy after passing the one you received on). -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On 1/27/19 6:23 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't disagree with what is stated here (but I have a headache and didn't > read it carefully), but, even without reading carefully, I believe that the > original author of a package could do something like create further > modifications to the code and create a non-free version of the code. > > Assuming that is correct, people using (or basing modifications) on the > (presumably) older free version could continue to use and develop based on > that, but would not have rights to that new non-free version. This is correct, and happens all the time. -Matt
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 06:47:05 AM Ben Finney wrote: > Howdy all, > > Recently in this forum, some concerns have been raised about works > covered by GNU GPL. In particular, whether a recipient of a work, > received under conditions of the GNU GPL, can have the freedoms of the > GNU GPL later withdrawn in that same work. > > To reassure those who might worry whether they can reply on the freedom > granted in a work, it is worth reading the GNU FAQ document for the GNU > GPL at the Free Software Foundation: > > [For any GNU GPL-licensed work,] the public already has the right to > use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn. > > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty> > > The same answer is in the FAQ specifically for the GNU GPL version 2.0 > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#CanDevelope > rThirdParty>. > > You can read more in the Software Freedom Conservancy's document > _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial > and Guide_, specifically in §7.4 “GPLv2 Irrevocability”. That concludes: > > Whether as a matter of a straightforward contractual obligation, or > as a matter of promissory estoppel, a contributor’s attempt to > revoke a copyright license grant and then enforce their copyright > against a user is highly unlikely to succeed. > > > https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007 > .4> > > In other words: Any copyright holder can *say* they wish to > retroactively revoke the GNU GPL to some party. However, unless that > party has violated the conditions of the GNU GPL grant they originally > received, there does not appear to be any enforcible threat of > revocation that would succeed. > > I hope these, along with the many court cases world-wide that have > tested the GNU GPL and found it to be enforcible, can reassure those > considering whether a particular copyright holder's whim can revoke the > freedoms guaranteed in a GNU GPL-covered work. I'd say there's nothing > to worry about from those threats. I don't disagree with what is stated here (but I have a headache and didn't read it carefully), but, even without reading carefully, I believe that the original author of a package could do something like create further modifications to the code and create a non-free version of the code. Assuming that is correct, people using (or basing modifications) on the (presumably) older free version could continue to use and develop based on that, but would not have rights to that new non-free version.
Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
Howdy all, Recently in this forum, some concerns have been raised about works covered by GNU GPL. In particular, whether a recipient of a work, received under conditions of the GNU GPL, can have the freedoms of the GNU GPL later withdrawn in that same work. To reassure those who might worry whether they can reply on the freedom granted in a work, it is worth reading the GNU FAQ document for the GNU GPL at the Free Software Foundation: [For any GNU GPL-licensed work,] the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty> The same answer is in the FAQ specifically for the GNU GPL version 2.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty>. You can read more in the Software Freedom Conservancy's document _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide_, specifically in §7.4 “GPLv2 Irrevocability”. That concludes: Whether as a matter of a straightforward contractual obligation, or as a matter of promissory estoppel, a contributor’s attempt to revoke a copyright license grant and then enforce their copyright against a user is highly unlikely to succeed. https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4> In other words: Any copyright holder can *say* they wish to retroactively revoke the GNU GPL to some party. However, unless that party has violated the conditions of the GNU GPL grant they originally received, there does not appear to be any enforcible threat of revocation that would succeed. I hope these, along with the many court cases world-wide that have tested the GNU GPL and found it to be enforcible, can reassure those considering whether a particular copyright holder's whim can revoke the freedoms guaranteed in a GNU GPL-covered work. I'd say there's nothing to worry about from those threats. -- \ “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them | `\to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their | _o__) own desires.” —Susan Brownell Anthony, 1896 | Ben Finney
