Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the freedom to distribute under unfree conditions. Stop spouting pure crapola, dak. The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit informal but that doesn't change anything). For example, source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer is a condition for authorized copying of source code and preparation of derivative works (when it falls outside the scope of 17 USC 117). As for covenants, one is the obligation to reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution regarding distribution of copies (including derivative works) in binary form made pursuant to the BSD. It doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: [...] The GPL is entirely different TC, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL TC. Only the BSD TC apply. There is nothing to indicate Only in the BSD license. You can obviously add your own terms. It is obvious only to GNU brainwashed population. Why do you think that Windows comes with the complete BSD network utilities? Stuff like pin and traceroute and so? And what make you think that those utilities are (derivative) works licensed to Microsoft under the BSD license to begin with? Why do you think that the BSD license is more popular for proprietary vendors? I've told you already that EULAs have really nothing to do with (non-exclusive) copyright licenses that contractually convey rights reserved to the copyright owners. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EU antitrust and the GPL
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] So far, there is no evidence that open source licensors would use these obligations with malicious intention trying to turn all software into open source. Other interesting quote from Mikko: Does the zero-royalty requirement in copyleft clause qualify as restricted price fixing (or the setting of a maximum price) in terms of the block exemption? The following observations speak against such a conclusion: -A royalty-free requirement does not imply that the price of the software must be zero. Then what does it imply? Software can be priced through other means than copyright royalties as well. But other means would not price software, they would price something else. -Copyleft clause does not affect all further âproduction of goods and servicesâ. But the regulation doesn't say that ALL further production of goods and services must be affected for a license to be in violation. Software is a good on its own. It does not cover services at all and only Nobody says that it does. covers goods, which are âderivative worksâ of the licensed software as further defined in copyright law. That's not what the FSF/RMS says. http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004297.html - Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:25:45 -0500 [quoting me] I say that XFree86 1.1 license is fully compatible with the GNU GPL. A compilation is NOT a derivative work. [/quoting me] You are right about the distinction. However, the GNU GPL conditions apply to creation of combined works, as well as to making derivatives of the GPL-covered program. - The intent to cover collective works (in addition to derivative works) can be witnessed in black and white from the text of the GPL itself. Furthermore, the GPL document, as published by the FSF, and as used by almost 100% of licensors, refers to the LGPL which clearly abuses the term derivative work and provides its own definition (misstated that is to say definition in the GPL itself aside for a moment). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EU antitrust and the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/6480c64e71ebb4fa - On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: clip Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic: Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming in European Competition Law Review 3/2006 http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf day5done (some folks believe that he is Wallace) commented: -- It appears Dr. Välimäki is as objective and unbiased in Europe as Eben Moglen is in the United States. Ever see anyone author and sell a book on open source licensing that didn't fervently believe in the self-promoting assumptions surrounding open source software? Order a print copy from Amazon or directly from us by filling in an order form or emailing your name, address and the number of copies wanted. We will process the order within 48 hrs and send the book with payment instructions. Direct order is preferred for European customers. The price of one copy is 39 EUR plus shipping charges (5 EUR for one copy to Europe). http://pub.turre.com/ bio: Mikko Välimäki, LL.M., Ph.D, is a research fellow at Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki. He also teaches technology and intellectual property law at the Helsinki University of Technology. Mr. Välimäki has consulted especially software companies and is the author of a book on open source licensing (available at http://pub.turre.com/). Previously, Mr. Välimäki has been a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a co-founder and former chairman of Electronic Frontier Finland. The open source community and its proponents are one giant, homogeneous, self-promoting hairball. -- The book is also available as a pdf download. http://pub.turre.com/openbook_valimaki.pdf regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:09:08 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation it is saying that by licensing the work under the GPL (which is required when an original work is modified) the licensee (for the moment take that to be the owner of the physical copy) must permit users of the work to obtain copies (and thus become licensees themselves) which they are then free to distribute and/or modify under the terms of the GPL. This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by the FSF itself. From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html : |--- | * If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand | he give me a copy? | |No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of | the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to | redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses. | | * What does this written offer valid for any third party mean? Does | that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed | program no matter what? | | Valid for any third party means that anyone who has the offer is | entitled to take you up on it. | |If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source | code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the | source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the | binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this | written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries | directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along | with the written offer. | | The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is | so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can | order the source code from you. The GPL says that modified versions, | if released, must be licensed ... to all third parties. Who are | these third parties? Section 2 says that modified versions you | distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. All | third parties means absolutely everyone--but this does not require | you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a | license from you, under the GPL, for your version. |--- | * A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web | site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources? | | The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without | ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a | special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release | the modified sources. | | It is essential for people to have the freedom to make | modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those | modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for | the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be | legitimate to require release of the source code in that special | case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version | 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet. | | In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for | programs designed for network server use. | | * Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or | company distribution? | | No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for | itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop | a modified version and install that version through its own | facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that | modified version to outsiders. | | However, when the organization transfers copies to other | organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, | providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. | | * If someone steals a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered | program, does the GPL give him the right to redistribute that | version? | | If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably | does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the | GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait | until his release before doing so. | | If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a | company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation | of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does | not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still | treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the | company hasn't released this version, no such violation has
Re: GPL and other licences
Each licensee is addressed as you. You in the GPL refers only to licensees. To be a licensee, you have to enter into interaction with a licensor. And since I have a copy of the program, I am the licensee. Simple, is it not? They don't say anything different. How comes you just make _claims_ about the GPL without actually quoting anything that would support your point? If I had to start quoting things, then I'd have to quote the whole license for you, since you are obviously incapable of reading it. I assume that anyone here has a copy of the GPL, and can read the sections. If you don't I can give you a copy of the whole license,. Quote it, then. It is pointless to quote things that the other party will simply not read, as you on a contibued basis do. Without ownership of a physical copy, there is no licensee. Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the license. You can accept the license all you want, but that does not give you the right to access a physical copy of the code owned by somebody else. If that person gave me access to the physical copy, it does. Have you bothered reading _anything_? It isn't the simply matter of just being able to access it, it is the simple matter of actually being legally allowed to do so. This has been stated, restated, and repated so many times that I'm getting quite bored of doing it. If you are not interested in actually reading anything that is written, and understand it, please state it so that we don't have to waste our times. Section 0: Each licensee is addressed as you. Bystanders are not addressed by the license. Only licensees are. Since I have recived a legal copy of the program, I am the liecnsee. I recived the source code from my employeer. I get the right to copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code in any medium (provided I do some stuff which I didn't quote here). Nobody gives you that right. The license does. The copy is owned by your employer. The CD is owned by the employeer, yes. Not the software. You are not free to do with is as you like. Nobody claimed so, stop inventing things. Even if he were breaking the license in some manner by not letting you use it like you want to (which he doesn't), the only party that has a legal standing against that would be the copyright holder, not you. Sure, but nobody claimed otherwise, once again, stop inventing things. The employeer gave legal access to the software to the employee, the employee can accept the license. You can't take the justice (or in this case rather the putative justice) for the copyright holder into your own hands. Once again, nobody claimed this. Stop inventing things. The terms of the license apply to the licensee, not every bystander. You are not a licensee. Since I recived the source code, *I*AM*IN*FACT*THE*LICENSEE*. The GNU General Public License version 2 explcicly states this. It doesn't. And waffling about that won't change it. Quote anything that would state such a thing. I have quoted several sections, that you are incapable to be bothered to understand those sections is not my fault. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under the GPL is within the scope of the original license. Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the work. I.e. change the license of the original copyright code. Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the freedom to distribute under unfree conditions. Only person who can re-license something is the copyright holder. Wrong. The only person who can give _permission_ to sublicense is the copyright holder. Sub-license != _re_-license. Re-license == Changing the license. Your point being what? Whatever license you get the stuff under is valid. I can infact extract BSD licensed code from an GPLed program, if I am entierly sure that the code that is extracted does not contain any GPLed bits. Hence why this is not relicencing, but dual licensing. So no relicensing happened, a dual license is in effect. If you could infact relicense BSD licensed code, then one could remove the copyright notice with the license blurb, you cannot. Once again, only the copyright holder can change the license of the work, i.e. re-license it. When you combine a modified-BSD-license (just so that David who doesn't understand assumptions grasps this) licensed, you are dual licensing the work, part of it is under the modifed-BSD license, and part of it is under the new license, for example the GPL. Uh, Microsoft is relicensing a whole bunch of BSD software. Quite a bit from their network stack. BSD is a source license. Where is the source for the BSD parts? Obviously, this is not a dual-license scheme. No, they are dual licensing it under two licenses. Microsoft cannot change the license of a BSD licensed work. They have to include the copyright notice, and the license in their source code. When you relicense a work, you can _remove_ the original license. This is not allowed with the modified-BSD license. But the conditions of modified-BSD don't prohibit binary-only distribution even though BSD is a source license. I have no idea what this means. I can license binary-only stuff under the BSD license if I so wish. There is nothing `source' specific about it, the same goes for any license. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is not your property. The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving access to the content. What part of the scenario do you simply not understand? If I give some person the key to my apartment and ask him to fetch a book from there, that does not mean that he gets all rights that I as the owner of the apartment have. It does not give him permission to read my letters, even though the content of the letters is not tangible property. You still confuse access and ownership. The owner is the licensee, nobody else. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by the FSF itself. Nobody claimed this, stop inventing lies. So it would seem you're out on a limb with your interpretation. He isn't, you are though. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by the FSF itself. Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0] programs which accept commands interactively[1] must be given (by the licensee) the opportunity to acquire a copy of the program, become a licensee and therefore be allowed to copy, modify and distribute the program? This seems to be saying that, for this specific class of programs, if the owner of the copy (the licensee) gives (someone) permission to use (ie run) the program then permission must also be granted (to that same person) to acquire a copy. If this applies (explicitly) to modified programs which accept interactive commands, then by implication it also applies to other modified programs which are licensed under the GPL. The interpretation is not as wide as to apply to all who come into contact with the program, just those whom the licensee allows to run the program. I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case' describes a situation where the licensee has to provide a copy of the work. [0] In other words, the original creator of a work does not have to allow users to obtain copies, but those who create derivative works have to do so. [1] Which is a class of program which at the time the GPL was written (when multi-user computers were much more common than 'personal' ones) was very likely to be run by people (users) other than the owner of the copy. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:56 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case' describes a situation where the licensee has to provide a copy of the work. But the selfsame entry says that the current GPL does not require it, and that version 3 might do something about that. Plus, it suggests another license in the meantime. Thus, your interpretation is not supported by the FSF. They clearly distinguish between what they'd like the situation to be, and what it is: | It is essential for people to have the freedom to make | modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those | modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for | the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be | legitimate to require release of the source code in that special | case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version | 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet. | | In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for | programs designed for network server use. Notice it _would be_ legitimate, not _it is_. Thus, it clearly _is not_ at this time. Notice that It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately. In fact, the entries I quoted refute all the assertions made by Alfred and yourself: 1. Users of a web-based program are not covered by the GPL (and you who like to extrapolate should have no problem in applying that to people in front of a glass teletype). 2. An organisation making copies for internal use does not distribute the software and can forbid its employees from distributing it outside the company 3. You cannot demand a copy of a GPLed program from the owner of a copy. It is the owner of a copy who decides to distribute it or not 4. If you get an unlawful copy of a GPLed work (steal one), you can distribute it under the GPL (ie become a licensee) only (and then only probably) if it is available elsewhere. It is legal for companies to treat modified GPLed programs as trade secrets. Read the FAQs again. Try and find _one_ that supports your interpretation. Think about what the great Confucius said: Mind like parachute, only works when open. :-) You are describing how you'd like things to be, not how they are. Take care, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is not your property. The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving access to the content. What part of the scenario do you simply not understand? If I give some person the key to my apartment and ask him to fetch a book from there, that does not mean that he gets all rights that I as the owner of the apartment have. It does not give him permission to read my letters, even though the content of the letters is not tangible property. You still confuse access and ownership. The owner is the licensee, nobody else. And you are confusing property with software. If I take your book, you loose the book. If I make a copy of a program that is stored on the CD (I'm legally allowed to make a copy, I have access to it, and the license allows me to do this), you do not loose the CD or the program. If you had a duplication machine which could duplicate the book a million times, you'd have a point, sadly, no such machine exists to my knowledge, so you don'g have a point. You are also forgetting whatever license the book might have. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
