Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What is distribution under copyright law? This isn't the proper legal language, but it is the conveyance of a copy from one legal entity to another. > What is a recipient of a copy under copyright law? Any legal entity who is conveyed a copy.
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:47:57AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > Examples of copying books, which are covered by copyright law, > and examples of software covered by other licenses are illustrative, > and useful when discussing philosophy, but they cannot be used > to reason about the GPL. What is distribution under copyright law? What is a recipient of a copy under copyright law? I think that's all that matters in this discussion, since the GPL claims to be a statement under copyright law, and relies totally on copyright law for enforcement, it's those copyright definitions that apply. The analogy I posted about books was meant to show that "internal distribution" is actually thought of as "distribution" in copyright law, and therefore, in the GPL as well. But since I am not a lawyer, and no lawyer has commented on the issue, it's fair to say that nobody here has any real idea whether it is allowed or not. Justin
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
[Lots of snips] > I read the three things above as saying that all recipients to modified > or unmodified GPL-covered works must be given notice that the work is > licensed under and can be distributed under the terms of the GPL. > You left out a relevant part of the GPL, from section 0. Each licensee is addressed as "you". When a corporation obtains software, the licensee is (normally) the corporation. Just because a human has physical control over company property, the human is not the owner. Your term "all recipients" means "all licensees." Show me in the GPL where it says each licensee must be "a human being." (Also, the GPL makes a distinction between modified and unmodified works.) >If my employer-conglomerate-but-still-one-single-legal-entity >buys a single copy, I still can't make copies for my coworkers, >not without someone negotiating a site-license agreement, or >purchasing multiple retail boxes. ...Because that is what those licenses say Examples of copying books, which are covered by copyright law, and examples of software covered by other licenses are illustrative, and useful when discussing philosophy, but they cannot be used to reason about the GPL. >The SPA would be unlikely to find a line of reasoning of "but we're >just internally redistributing the program--It's all owned by one >entity, [snip] One of the nice things about free software is that self-appointed guard dogs like the SPA (now the SIIA) have no need to exist. That's part of the "extra burdens" discussed in the Manifesto. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness for software reuse: Free WWW site lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions, and applications. http://www.mibsoftware.com/reuse/
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
At 06:20 AM 9/23/99 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues, >like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years >of experience in being talmudic about the GPL. > >But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions >appendix. Last time I raised that issue, he said something like he didn't >want to do that and then have them be defined later in copyright law in a way >that would conflict with the GPL. That seems reasonable, but I will raise the >issue again. Considering RMS subscribes to this list (I think)... it could be argued you just did raise the issue again... :) D
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues, like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years of experience in being talmudic about the GPL. But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions appendix. Last time I raised that issue, he said something like he didn't want to do that and then have them be defined later in copyright law in a way that would conflict with the GPL. That seems reasonable, but I will raise the issue again. Thanks Bruce
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 12:12:20PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > > > The issue is whether the "you" (the licensee) refers to a human > > individual or the corporation, and whether keeping it inside > > your company counts as "distribution" as per GPL 2b. Then looking at part of that section 2b of the GPL itself: |...You may [...] copy and distribute such modifications or work |under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet ^^ |all of these conditions:... And Section 1: |You may copy and distribute [...] provided that you [...] keep intact |all the notices that refer to this License [...] and |give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License ^ |along with the Program. And then Section 0 above that: |This License applies to any program or other work which contains |a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed |under the terms of this General Public License. [...] I read the three things above as saying that all recipients to modified or unmodified GPL-covered works must be given notice that the work is licensed under and can be distributed under the terms of the GPL. It seems to me that an interpretation of an "internal distribution" exception to the GPL would not only have to show that an internal distribution is not a distribution, (discussed below), but also that the recipients of the code aren't recipients. For an encore we could prove that black is white, but we'd need to watch out at the zebra crossings. > > I think it is appropriate to consider the corporation the > > licensee (and this is the common legal convention, is it not?), > > and copies which circulate internal to a company are not the > > same as distributed copies. > > "You" can certainly refer to a company. The question is whether or not > handing out copies of software to employees, contractors, shareholders, > directors, agents, etc., of the company counts as "distribution". > > If so, then the company is not required to publish the software, but any > of the employees/agents/contractors/shareholders of the company who > receives a copy gets it under the GPL and can decide on their own > to publish it. > > I really don't know whether internal distribution of material counts as > distribution in general. Some lawyer would have to decide. This non-lawyer doesn't see how it could possibly not count as a distribution. Let me give a similar analogy to yours: If I buy a commercial off-the-shelf program with no end-user license agreement, but just uses the standard copyright laws, (to make things simple), I can't make extra copies of that program for my friends. If my employer-conglomerate-but-still-one-single-legal-entity buys a single copy, I still can't make copies for my coworkers, not without someone negotiating a site-license agreement, or purchasing multiple retail boxes. The SPA would be unlikely to find a line of reasoning of "but we're just internally redistributing the program--It's all owned by one entity, the corporation, so we're not *really* copying or redistributing the program to anyone else" to be very convincing. I think they'd still be inclined to think that copyright violations were going on, just based on standard copyright law, and even without a vendor trying to claim the validity of some EULA of theirs. Copying a closed-source program internally within a company would pretty much seem to be a "distribution" to all concerned. Why would Open Source programs be any different? Obligatory Corel comment: I wrote the above as part of "distribution" discussion, but I don't accuse Corel of maliciously violating licenses. It's looking like Corel has simply made an (embarrassing) mistake. Bruce has said they're working on correcting it. Not only does Corel have an opportunity to gracefully correct their mistake (I'm thinking a well-worded press release may soothe remaining tensions, tactfully alert other companies not to ignore potential land mine issues, and show investment types that Corel learns from and correct their mistakes in internet time--helpful to all sides), but this is also an opportunity for everyone to react, as has looked to be the case, in a more pleasant way than a stereotypical closed-source company would. Calm and polite discussion, followed by forgiveness for honest mistakes is a good long-term strategy. Fortunately, mudslinging and threats of lawsuits have so far not seemed to have been considered necessary by any of the license holders. It would be nice if the perception of the Open Source/Free Software world was not only one of greater freedoms, cheaper, more functional, and more efficient code, but also one of more civilized legal disputes. (At least more civilized at the beginning. Continued violations would of course require real lawsuits, or at the very least real flamewars of
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
> If both machines are your own machines for your own use, you still have not > distributed it (unless making a backup copy would be distributing as > well), but I understand what you meantand it is not the > definition of "distribution" which needs scrutiny, IMO. > > The issue, as I wrote, is whether the human is the licensee as > per the GPL. In a legal sense, the licensee may be the company, not > the human. and perhaps the GPL should be amended to clarify this so that corporate legal departments will be less likely to suggest source-licensed proprietary software in place of free software. since there seems to be no argument on whether companies keeping their modified free software as internal secrets is a good/bad thing, we may as well put our position in writing to make everyone's life a little easier. kris
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
From: "Derek J. Balling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you move it from one machine to more than one machine you have > distributed it. Whether or not you personally consider it distributed is > irrelevant. In the absence of a definition of distributed being in the GPL, > If both machines are your own machines for your own use, you still have not distributed it (unless making a backup copy would be distributing as well), but I understand what you meantand it is not the definition of "distribution" which needs scrutiny, IMO. The issue, as I wrote, is whether the human is the licensee as per the GPL. In a legal sense, the licensee may be the company, not the human.
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
At 11:16 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: >What clause in the GPL requires that all modification/derivative >works must be under the GPL? > >GPL 2b says any modifications/derivatives which are distributed or >published must be under the GPL. Software copied to internal company >servers, no matter how geographically distant, is still not >distributed or published. If you move it from one machine to more than one machine you have distributed it. Whether or not you personally consider it distributed is irrelevant. In the absence of a definition of distributed being in the GPL, the english-language definition must apply. In fact, the Merriam-Webster definition says it means to give one to each member of a group, which would actually lend itself well to an internal distribution (as opposed to just "releasing it", since what you and I may think of as distributing is not confined to a "group" other than that group known as "homo sapiens")
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
[analogy snipped] > If you would consider that to be distribution of the book, then why > wouldn't you consider the situation to be the same with software? > Software licenses (often) grant rights to perform actions which would not be permitted by copyright law. You cannot "reason" by analogy as in your example. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness for software reuse: Free WWW site lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions, and applications. http://www.mibsoftware.com/reuse/
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you > > use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from > > the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. > > > As I read it, the GPL does not require that internal development > copies be published. Correct. The GPL never requires anything to be published, ever. > The issue is whether the "you" (the licensee) refers to a human > individual or the corporation, and whether keeping it inside > your company counts as "distribution" as per GPL 2b. > I think it is appropriate to consider the corporation the > licensee (and this is the common legal convention, is it not?), > and copies which circulate internal to a company are not the > same as distributed copies. "You" can certainly refer to a company. The question is whether or not handing out copies of software to employees, contractors, shareholders, directors, agents, etc., of the company counts as "distribution". If so, then the company is not required to publish the software, but any of the employees/agents/contractors/shareholders of the company who receives a copy gets it under the GPL and can decide on their own to publish it. I really don't know whether internal distribution of material counts as distribution in general. Some lawyer would have to decide. Reasoning by analogy, I would guess that internal distribution DOES count as distribution, otherwise the following would be allowed: If you buy a book or record, you are allowed to make copies of it for your own use, under ordinary copyright law. You do not have the right to distribute, publish, or publically perform those copies. If a company buys a book it also has a right to make copies of it, for its own use. Does this mean that it can buy one book, photocopy it, and hand out copies to each of its employees? If you would consider that to be distribution of the book, then why wouldn't you consider the situation to be the same with software? This is an interesting question regardless of what happens to Corel, and I would like an answer as to how it could be that the above situation is illegal, but internal distribution of GPL'd software can avoid the copyleft. > Do you understand the GPL differently? Someone once told me that they took the GPL to three different lawyers, asking what it meant, and got three different answers :-) Justin
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
> The GPL doesn't seem to explicitly allow me to restrict its flow, so > regardless of whether or not he has a job tomorrow for violating company > policies, the legality is such that I don't think they could actually bust > him on a copyright violation, since any modifications/derivative works HAD > to be under the GPL as well, granting him the right to redistribute the code. > What clause in the GPL requires that all modification/derivative works must be under the GPL? GPL 2b says any modifications/derivatives which are distributed or published must be under the GPL. Software copied to internal company servers, no matter how geographically distant, is still not distributed or published.
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
But we're not as concerned with the "distribute source" requirement as we are about the "redistributable" nature of the item in question. For example: 1.) I get "app A" (licensed under the GPL) from the web. I modify it (make it faster, say), and I put it on all our servers nationwide. I put a restriction "for internal use only" on the modified form. 2.) Can some other employee, in another one of my company's offices, see that the "for internal use only" clause isn't provided for in the GPL, and redistribute the modified package to a more public audience. The GPL doesn't seem to explicitly allow me to restrict its flow, so regardless of whether or not he has a job tomorrow for violating company policies, the legality is such that I don't think they could actually bust him on a copyright violation, since any modifications/derivative works HAD to be under the GPL as well, granting him the right to redistribute the code. Thoughts? D At 02:12 PM 9/22/99 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Currently, if you do not distribute a GPL binary, you need not distribute >source. RMS was musing at one point about requiring distributed source for >a binary that gets "public performance" (which he can do under basic copyright >law), but this does not exist in the current GPL. > > Thanks > > Bruce
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
Currently, if you do not distribute a GPL binary, you need not distribute source. RMS was musing at one point about requiring distributed source for a binary that gets "public performance" (which he can do under basic copyright law), but this does not exist in the current GPL. Thanks Bruce
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
This raises an interesting question: If have a piece of GPL'ed code, and I modify it for my internal application, putting it on a number of servers, are you saying that just because I installed that modified code on my own servers that I have to release it to the world? Not disagreeing with you, but this has always been, to my understanding, something you could do under the GPL, and if its not, then there are probably a LOT of places stealthily violating the GPL without even realizing it, because that's the way a lot of people have described the GPL's functionality in the past. D At 02:40 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Justin Wells wrote: >If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it >and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right >to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development". > >Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software? > >Ordinary copyright law does not permit it, and the GPL certainly contains >no exception for "internal use" or "internal development". It (or is it >the LGPL?) even goes so far as to say that if you link against GPL material >in memory, the copy in memory is subject to the GPL even though >the material you linked with is not. > >I trust that Corel IS going to resolve this problem in a fair and friendly >way, it seems to me to be an honest mistake--everyone makes mistakes, and >I don't hold any grudge over this. > >I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you >use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from >the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. > >Justin > > >On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 01:09:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I got a very reassuring phone call from Corel today, I'm confident > > the problem will be resolved. > > > > Regarding your GPL question, I think you could make a case that > distribution > > to your own employee or a contractor is part of internal development, > but the > > beta test agreement doesn't really establish a contractor relationship. > > > > Anyway, this is not going to be tested this time. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bruce
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you > use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from > the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. > As I read it, the GPL does not require that internal development copies be published. The issue is whether the "you" (the licensee) refers to a human individual or the corporation, and whether keeping it inside your company counts as "distribution" as per GPL 2b. I think it is appropriate to consider the corporation the licensee (and this is the common legal convention, is it not?), and copies which circulate internal to a company are not the same as distributed copies. Do you understand the GPL differently?
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:40:02AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote: > I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you > use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from > the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. The theory is that the company never distributes to anyone. It nevers provides a proper license for its modifications, since the GPL only restricts distribution. No one can distribute it, since both the company code and the GPL prohibit distribution. The employees in this case never get distributed the code, per se - it's always kept by the company. IIRC, RMS agreed with this line of reasoning. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development". Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software? Ordinary copyright law does not permit it, and the GPL certainly contains no exception for "internal use" or "internal development". It (or is it the LGPL?) even goes so far as to say that if you link against GPL material in memory, the copy in memory is subject to the GPL even though the material you linked with is not. I trust that Corel IS going to resolve this problem in a fair and friendly way, it seems to me to be an honest mistake--everyone makes mistakes, and I don't hold any grudge over this. I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. Justin On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 01:09:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I got a very reassuring phone call from Corel today, I'm confident > the problem will be resolved. > > Regarding your GPL question, I think you could make a case that distribution > to your own employee or a contractor is part of internal development, but the > beta test agreement doesn't really establish a contractor relationship. > > Anyway, this is not going to be tested this time. > > Thanks > > Bruce
Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
I got a very reassuring phone call from Corel today, I'm confident the problem will be resolved. Regarding your GPL question, I think you could make a case that distribution to your own employee or a contractor is part of internal development, but the beta test agreement doesn't really establish a contractor relationship. Anyway, this is not going to be tested this time. Thanks Bruce
Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL
Regarding Corel and licensing: Some people claim that because the Corel testers are some manner of consultants, it is an "internal" thing and therefore not covered by the GPL. I see nothing in the GPL that makes any exemption for internal copying. Presumably if I give a copy of GPL'd code to someone else inside my company, they get that under the GPL. Other software licenses don't have automatic exemptions just because you are making the copy internally. Companies have to pay for multiple licenses if they want to have multiple copies. Why would the GPL have some special automatic exemption that other licenses do not? In fact it says this: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, 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. So since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the license, there is no such exemption. It looks like Corel is trying to "sublicense" limited rights to contractors, and this is forbidden. It also looks like those contractors are entitled to ignore Corel's license, since it is void, and distribute under the GPL anyway, and that Corel can't do anything about that. Worse still if this goes unchallenged it sets a precedent. You cannot later go and claim that Evil Corp. isn't allowed to do the same thing: Evil Corp. will claim that you made an exception for Corel, and it is unfair discrimination against them--they'd likely win with that argument, you are not allowed to single people out and discriminate against them, you have to apply the same principle to everyone. I'd like to hear what someone at the FSF thinks of all this. Justin
