Re: violation of GPLv2 - remedies?
on Thu, May 09, 2002, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: on Wed, May 08, 2002, Mahesh T Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ... [Attribution lost] How drastically does the situation change if the publisher never bothered to officially register the copyright with the library of congress? Registration does not make any difference This statement is patently false under US law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html Peace. I've received several off-list responses to this comment, including one appearing to be from the author of the comment I replied to. My response: - I stand by my statement. Registration confers, 17 USC 411, states several explicit requirements for registration in infringement actions. Registration makes a difference. - An absolute statement was made. A single counter example is necessary to demonstrate its falsehood. - For the language lawyers out there, please consult a dictionary for the distinction between false and deliberately lied in an attempt to misliead. - As I've stated off-list: I stand by my statements. If anyone wishes to discuss this matter on list, they're more than welcome to. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of Gestalt don't you understand? zIWETHEY: Provocative, super smart, and oh yeah, just a little sexy. http://z.iwethey.org/forums/ msg04940/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: violation of GPLv2 - remedies?
At 11:44 PM 5/12/02 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: on Thu, May 09, 2002, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: on Wed, May 08, 2002, Mahesh T Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ... [Attribution lost] How drastically does the situation change if the publisher never bothered to officially register the copyright with the library of congress? Registration does not make any difference This statement is patently false under US law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html Peace. I've received several off-list responses to this comment, including one appearing to be from the author of the comment I replied to. My response: - I stand by my statement. Registration confers, 17 USC 411, states several explicit requirements for registration in infringement actions. Registration makes a difference. Specifically, registration prior to the infringement (or within three months of first publication) is a prerequisite to statutory damages and attorneys fees. The copyright holder is still protected without registration, but the protection may not have so high a dollar value. (Actual damages are often difficult to prove, while statutory damages can reach $150,000 per willful infringement.) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/412.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: violation of GPLv2 - remedies?
on Wed, May 08, 2002, Mahesh T Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Abraham Ingersoll wrote: Once a company has violated the GPL (v2), what remedies does the copyright holder have? What must a copyright holder do to protect these possible remedies, and what can/should a copyright holder do with regard to the original violator? This is simple - meet a lawyer. How drastically does the situation change if the publisher never bothered to officially register the copyright with the library of congress? Registration does not make any difference This statement is patently false under US law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html Peace. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of Gestalt don't you understand? A guide to GNU/Linux books: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/linux-books.html msg04937/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: violation of GPLv2 - remedies?
The issues of enforceability of the GPL and the remedies available for breach of the GPL are complicated ones. Because the GPL is intended by its authors to be a copyright license rather than a contract, copyright remedies apply. It makes a difference, under the Copyright Act, whether the copyright is registered or not, and only the original copyright owner (or the holder of an exclusive right under the copyright) has standing to sue to enforce a copyright license. I prefer at this time not to discuss these issues in generalities. If you have a specific question that arises under the GPL, you should speak directly with an attorney. Feel free to call me about this if you want. /Larry Rosen Attorney and Executive Director, OSI 707-485-1242 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com www.opensource.org -Original Message- From: Abraham Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: violation of GPLv2 - remedies? (This is a bit off topic, but the problem we've encountered is probably something other open-source software developers will eventually cross, so I'm posting here..) My questions -- Once a company has violated the GPL (v2), what remedies does the copyright holder have? What must a copyright holder do to protect these possible remedies, and what can/should a copyright holder do with regard to the original violator? How drastically does the situation change if the publisher never bothered to officially register the copyright with the library of congress? Besides the obvious experts (such as the FSF in the case of the GPL), are there any other good sources for information regarding copyright statutes caselaw, especially in regards to how copyright laws apply to copyleft licenses? And does anyone have references to attorneys who specialize in copyright law, software and open source licenses? We're in need... Thanks, Abe Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager - Dajoba, LLC http://dajoba.com http://abesphotos.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Violation
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: I am sorry, but these assertions are incorrect. Have you ever rented a car, purchased an airline ticket, acquired a credit card, or undertaken a number of transactions in modern life where you assent to the terms of a contract (call it a license if you want) that you did NOT negotiate. Certainly. But I agreed to those terms, even if on a "take it or leave it" basis. If I rented a car, I signed a rental agreement saying I had read the terms (which I had) and would abide by them. Ditto the airline ticket and most especially the credit card. (If anyone has acquired a credit card without consciously assenting to its terms, I urge you most sincerely to reconsider now!) I am not saying that we should be happy with all of the ways we may be bound by agreements we barely negotiate, but this discomfort does not mean the obligations are not legally enforceable. Similarly, the GPL contains terms that are enforceable. By using the word "agreement", you kick the ball into your own goalposts. The GNU GPL as applied to the Linux kernel or GNU Emacs gives me, and you, and you, and you, and you ... certain rights whether we have *agreed* to anything or not, as long as we refrain from certain forbidden actions. (My reference, in yesterday's post, to "doing certain actions" was of course nonsense: the GPL doesn't require us to take any action in particular, nor could it, unless we actually exercise our rights under it.) -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: Violation
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: No. You may use the work under the terms of the GPL or not at all. As list members know, I scream bloody murder any time anyone brings up the word "use". Neithert the GPL nor the Copyright Act purport to limit use. As long as the program is lawfully acquired (not, e.g. by way of a stolen CD-ROM), there can be no doubt about your right to "use" it in any way you like outside the limits imposed by the Act. If I buy a book, I may use it to insulate a root cellar or check erosion in a gully, if I like, and that independent of what the copyright owner says. His rights inhibit me only from copyight, distributing, publicly performing or displaying, or creating derivative works from the book. I may sell my copy; I may destroy it; I may read it silently or out loud (but not in public), etc. etc. Closed-source software, OTOH, may have restrictive licenses on use. For example, it may demand that you run it only on a single computer, or only on a single computer at one time, or only in ways that do not compete with the publisher, or whatever. All of these are enforced by the contract of adhesion usually called "shrink-wrap." All are well outside the bounds of the bundle of rights called copyright. But the GPL talks only of "copying, distribution, and modification", and does not limit any other actions, including "use". The GPL could also limit public performance or display, but does not speak of them. Some other free software licenses do talk of use, but in my unprofessional opinion they do so as mere _flatus vocis_. As you correctly note the copyright is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. This means you (i.e., the User) have NO rights UNLESS you comply with the terms of the license. You have no rights *of those included in the copyright bundle*. That is far from every possible right. Now, is it getting clearer why the license is a contract. (BTW, there is an exception to what I just said, but it is contained in the Copyright Act and applies to all copyrightable works regardless of whether a license is used to distribute the work). I suppose you mean fair use. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: Violation
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:21:53 -0500, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a word, the answer to your question is NO.
I am sure you have heard of "UCITA" by now. The purpose of this proposed
uniform legislation is to set the ground rules for contracts involving
information transactions.
Thank you for the reply. I am aware of UCITA, though I cannot say I have a
comprehensive understanding of it. From what you mentioned, I do not regard
its regulation of contracts as relevant to my question, because I am
questioning the existence of a contract in every case of a license, while
you have presupposed such existence of contract.
In the software world (and some others) the term
license refers to a type of contract.
I wish to query this. Might I say that it is NOT so in every case? For
purposes of law a license can be valid notwithstanding (i) contractual
relations or (ii) copyright subsistence. A license can exist independently
of these two.[1]
In the context of software, it is almost impossible to lawfully use it
without there being a license expressly permitting the act of copying. This
is because this act of copying is one of the exclusive rights guaranteed to
the copyright holder (author).[2]
In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is a contract in
every case. The OSD s.7 'Distribution of License' stresses that no
subsequent execution of additional license is required for redistribution.
This implies that the OSS License is 'automatic'. This gives the likelihood
that in many cases a contract is PRECLUDED from the licensing mechanism.
For instance, if I were to download RedHat from FTP, and then install it
after reading and accepting the 'click wrap license' involved, would there
be a contract in such a case? I doubt it.
There are differences as between jurisdictions regarding contractual
analyses. In UK, it is particularly difficult to regard the GPL
REdistribution licenses as being contractual, this is because of the
requirement of consideration for a contract to exist.
Consequently, you CAN violate the
terms of a license and doing so is often referred to as a breach of
contract.
Agreed, assuming that a contract is present. Under this head, the remedy
would be one of (punitive?) damages for breach of contract. Again, I doubt
whether 'violation of license terms' would be properly employed in court,
because the issue in question is one of 'breach of contract'.
This may appear as nitpicking, but I think this semantic distinction is
worthwhile, given the obvious difference between (i) the license and (ii)
the contract.
The points about permissive copyright and other such... are not relevant to
the legal significance of the term *license*
I stressed the license being permissive because this directly relates to
its being a personal interest. Thus, a license is not within the legal
definition of a 'proprietary interest' [4], unlike copyright. IOW, a
license acts 'in personam', instead of 'in rem'.
In brief, the attitude of OSI is that the license generates 'rights
attached to the program' [5]. From a strictly legal perspective, this seems
incorrect because a license attaches rights to the person (licensee) not
the property (computer program). Not even an exclusive license gives rise
to a proprietary claim, much less a non-exclusive libetarian license like
the GPL.
This question of personal/proprietary is probably the fundamental issue to
be resolved if and when a dispute involving open source goes to court. The
second issue to be resolved I think is regards the position of contract in
relation to the 'automatic' Open source license.
[1] pg. 310 Garnett, K., James, J. and Davies, G. (eds) (1999) "Copinger
and Skone James on Copyright 14th Edition", Sweet and Maxwell
[2] Under UK Copyright law this is governed by s. 16 Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988
[3] "The license must be automatic, no signature required" Perens, B.
(1999) "The Open Source Definition" in Open Sources: Voices from the Open
Source Revolution, O'Reilly and Assoc.
[4]. {I mean 'proprietary' in a legal sense, not the same 'proprietary'
defined in GPL or in various OSS writings which seem to equate it with
'anti-social', 'restrictive', 'abusive' and 'microsoft'!}
[5] cf. s.7 and s. 8 of Open Source Definition
Re: Violation
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:30:51 +1200, "j.Maxwell Legg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: W.Yip was referring specifically to alterations to a an old bare license that had no subject matter and was only a set of terms. Hi. I am afraid you have misread me. I hope my subsequent postings serve to clarify things. Primarily, I am attempting to reconcile conventional legal understanding of the license to the radically permissive nature of the OSS licenses. Conventional licenses are more restrictive, while OSS licenses are so permissive, even 'viral', that the license threatens the very foundations of the notion of copyright as property. I am not concerned here with alterations to the terms of a license, whether bare or otherwise.
Re: Violation
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote: Conventional licenses are more restrictive, while OSS licenses are so permissive, even 'viral', that the license threatens the very foundations of the notion of copyright as property. I hope not! If no one owned emacs or gcc, then there would be no one to enforce their GPL provisions. Whether or not something is "owned" by an individual, a caretaker, a foundation or even a government agency, it is still property. If one dislikes information as property, the only honest way to go, in my opinion, is public domain. -- David Johnson... _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Violation
David Johnson wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote: Conventional licenses are more restrictive, while OSS licenses are so permissive, even 'viral', that the license threatens the very foundations of the notion of copyright as property. I hope not! If no one owned emacs or gcc, then there would be no one to enforce their GPL provisions. Whether or not something is "owned" by an individual, a caretaker, a foundation or even a government agency, it is still property. If one dislikes information as property, the only honest way to go, in my opinion, is public domain. The GPL is dishonest, then? RMS dislikes the notion of information as property. Yet he used the provisions of the intellectual property system to create the GPL, to promote freedom. Personally, I like this kind of pragmatic approach. Change the system from within. Mark
RE: Violation
-Original Message- From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "Violation" Thank you for the reply. I am aware of UCITA, though I cannot say I have a comprehensive understanding of it. From what you mentioned, I do not regard its regulation of contracts as relevant to my question, because I am questioning the existence of a contract in every case of a license, while you have presupposed such existence of contract. It will not only be relevant to your question, it will be dispositive, if enacted by all 50 states (perhaps so even if not). Let me know if it is unclear why. In the software world (and some others) the term license refers to a type of contract. I wish to query this. Might I say that it is NOT so in every case? For purposes of law a license can be valid notwithstanding (i) contractual relations or (ii) copyright subsistence. A license can exist independently of these two.[1] Well, a license certainly exists independent of copyright. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The law of copyright sets default rules for copyright holders. Licenses are not required. Software developers like Microsoft imbued mantra-like qualities to the phrase: "this software is licensed, not sold." Apparently, these developers never really had much confidence in what they claimed so now we have UCITA. Nonetheless, the law of copyright grants copyright holders the right to sell copies of their software FULLY protected by copyright (ESPECIALLY IF YOU FILE A FEDERAL REGISTRATION) without the need of a license. Why, then, are licenses used, you may ask? I suspect the answer has a number of reasons, but the primary reason is that a license is a legally enforceable way to ADD limits on the use of a copyright holders work that are far beyond the scopeof copyright. Take a look at almost any EULA and you should notie that the astounding limitations included in the license have little or nothing to do with the rights protected under the Copyright Act. BTW, I am not saying that this is necessarily improper. I am saying, however, that the connection between the limitations imposed in many software licenses and the law of copyright is fairly tenuous. In the context of software, it is almost impossible to lawfully use it without there being a license expressly permitting the act of copying. This is because this act of copying is one of the exclusive rights guaranteed to the copyright holder (author).[2] In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is a contract in every case. The OSD s.7 'Distribution of License' stresses that no subsequent execution of additional license is required for redistribution. This implies that the OSS License is 'automatic'. This gives the likelihood that in many cases a contract is PRECLUDED from the licensing mechanism. For instance, if I were to download RedHat from FTP, and then install it after reading and accepting the 'click wrap license' involved, would there be a contract in such a case? I doubt it. Why do you doubt it? You just said you accepted the terms of the license by clicking and downloading. What else should be necessary to manifest your assent to the agreement? Certainly, if clicking is insufficient, we have VERY BIG problem to overcome in e-commerce. I do not think you will find much support for your position. A distinct question may arise, which you have not raised yet, concerning how a user may escape the terms of the license if the software that is downloaded does not function in the manner you thought it would and you have suffered damages as a result. (More on that later, perhaps?) There are differences as between jurisdictions regarding contractual analyses. In UK, it is particularly difficult to regard the GPL REdistribution licenses as being contractual, this is because of the requirement of consideration for a contract to exist. Good point, here. Consequently, you CAN violate the terms of a license and doing so is often referred to as a breach of contract. Agreed, assuming that a contract is present. Under this head, the remedy would be one of (punitive?) damages for breach of contract. Again, I doubt whether 'violation of license terms' would be properly employed in court, because the issue in question is one of 'breach of contract'. This may appear as nitpicking, but I think this semantic distinction is worthwhile, given the obvious difference between (i) the license and (ii) the contract. I think I understand your preference for a distinction between the terms. The *problem* is in the United States, a contract is a contract. The points about permissive copyright and other such... are not relevant to the legal significance of the term *license* I stressed the license being permissive because this directly relates to its being a personal interest. Thus, a license is not within t
Re: Violation
"W. Yip" wrote: In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is a contract in every case. The OSD s.7 'Distribution of License' stresses that no subsequent execution of additional license is required for redistribution. This implies that the OSS License is 'automatic'. This gives the likelihood that in many cases a contract is PRECLUDED from the licensing mechanism. For instance, if I were to download RedHat from FTP, and then install it after reading and accepting the 'click wrap license' involved, would there be a contract in such a case? I doubt it. IANAL, but I agree with you. The GNU GPL and other open source "licenses" (whether that term is justly applied to them is another matter) are in fact conditional non-exclusive transfers of copyright. They are not contracts not only for technical reasons (lack of consideration, etc.) but more fundamentally because there is no agreement, no meeting of the minds. The copyright owner grants certain of his otherwise exclusive rights to you, conditional on your doing such-and-such and refraining from such-and-such. Provided the conditions are met, you have those rights whether you agree or not. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Violation
John Cowan writes:
"W. Yip" wrote:
In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is a contract in
every case. The OSD s.7 'Distribution of License' stresses that no
subsequent execution of additional license is required for redistribution.
This implies that the OSS License is 'automatic'. This gives the likelihood
that in many cases a contract is PRECLUDED from the licensing mechanism.
For instance, if I were to download RedHat from FTP, and then install it
after reading and accepting the 'click wrap license' involved, would there
be a contract in such a case? I doubt it.
IANAL, but I agree with you. The GNU GPL and other open source "licenses"
(whether that term is justly applied to them is another matter) are in fact
conditional non-exclusive transfers of copyright. They are not contracts not only
for technical reasons (lack of consideration, etc.) but more fundamentally
because there is no agreement, no meeting of the minds. The copyright
owner grants certain of his otherwise exclusive rights to you, conditional
on your doing such-and-such and refraining from such-and-such. Provided
the conditions are met, you have those rights whether you agree or not.
This is the GPL's theory ("you are not required to accept this licensed,
because you have not signed it...").
A consequence of this interpretation is that it should not be possible to
sue any public license violator for anything _other_ than copyright
infringement (because there was no opportunity for the licensee to
acquire any contractual obligations).
Suppose I write some program and publish it with a public license which
says that anyone may use it, but that, by _distributing_ it, a distributor
implies agreement with my distribution-permission conditions, which are
"paying $1,000,000 into a fund for bearded programmers, to be established
by the Bearded Programmer Foundation". Now somebody distributes the
program, but does not pay the BPF.
I have a cause of action against the distributor for copyright
infringement (since under copyright law, "nothing else", as the GPL says,
grants permission for copying, and it is forbidden by default). But
I can't sue to recover the $1,000,000 for the BPF, unless there was
actually a contract there.
Your argument, and a popular argument among people who have looked this
sort of thing over, seems to be that, even though some public licenses
purport to be contracts, or to create obligations for people who
modify or distribute software, they are not actually contracts -- just
conditional permission grants under copyright law, which can either be
accepted or ignored. The result of this is either a copyright violation
or no copyright violation, but in any case no "license violation".
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Violation
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Mark Koek wrote: The GPL is dishonest, then? I didn't say that! Nowhere within it does it say it is not property, and plenty of places where it acknowledges it is guarding a piece of intellectual property. But I hear a lot of statements to the effect that "copyleft is not copyright" when in fact it is. People who don't believe in information as property, but turn around and use the GPL saying "no one owns it", are being dishonest, either with me or with themselves. I can only assume that they are being unintentionally dishonest. RMS dislikes the notion of information as property. Then it is curious to me why he considers his own works, as demonstrated by his actions, to be intellectual property. Regardless of whether he considers himself and the FSF as owners or as mere caretakers, he has imposed upon his works terms and conditions that only owners are allowed to make. He claims to be giving his software away when in fact he is sharing instead. Is he being dishonest by doing this? In my opinion, yes... Personally, I like this kind of pragmatic approach. Change the system from within. The "viral" clauses may do some small bit of changing the system, but as a whole, Free Software sits squarely amidst the concepts of property. Essentially, you can't do anything with anyone else's property without their prior permission. Free Software gives you those permissions. Does taking down one's "no trespassing" sign count as a blow against real estate property? Hardly! -- David Johnson... _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Violation
IANAL, but I agree with you. The GNU GPL and other open source "licenses" (whether that term is justly applied to them is another matter) are in fact conditional non-exclusive transfers of copyright. They are not contracts not only for technical reasons (lack of consideration, etc.) but more fundamentally because there is no agreement, no meeting of the minds. I am sorry, but these assertions are incorrect. Have you ever rented a car, purchased an airline ticket, acquired a credit card, or undertaken a number of transactions in modern life where you assent to the terms of a contract (call it a license if you want) that you did NOT negotiate. When you get your Visa bill next month, why not pay an interest rate you think is fair rather than the one listed (without re-negotiating the terms) and see if the bank claims you agreed to pay the rate they pick. Or, better still, after agreeing to pay $1.50 to use another bank's ATM machine by clicking (or pushing "yes"), call the bank and tell them you want your $1.50 back because the "agreement" isn't contractually enforceable. I am not saying that we should be happy with all of the ways we may be bound by agreements we barely negotiate, but this discomfort does not mean the obligations are not legally enforceable. Similarly, the GPL contains terms that are enforceable. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Violation
David, I completely agree with your point. This is a difficult issue. Copyeft is an attempt to get around the scooping out problem. In doing so, it brings about its own copyright problem. Rod -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.; Mark Koek Cc: W. Yip; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: "Violation" On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Agreed. The difficulty, however, is that when something is added to the public domain (which is becoming more and more difficult), anyone can scoop it back out. You can "scoop" as much as you want out of the public domain, but it will still be there. Certainly someone could come along and use my public domain progam within their closed source software. They can put whatever copyrights and restrictions they want on it. But the original software is still there in the public domain. By putting a work into the public domain, you no longer have the property rights to restrict its usage in ways you disagree with. Only an owner can do that. In my mind, placing software under the GPL, or any other OSS license, is an explicit statement of ownership by both word and deed. -- David Johnson... _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Violation
In a word, the answer to your question is NO. I am sure you have heard of "UCITA" by now. The purpose of this proposed uniform legislation is to set the ground rules for contracts involving information transactions. In the software world (and some others) the term license refers to a type of contract. Consequently, you CAN violate the terms of a license and doing so is often referred to as a breach of contract. The points about permissive copyright and other such... are not relevant to the legal significance of the term *license* Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] For *legal* purposes, is the phrase "Violation of GPL" incorrect?
Re: Violation
Mark Wells wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote: A license is only permissive. The failure to follow the license terms amounts to acting beyond what is permitted. Invariably in software this act would infringe copyright, because such an act would presumably come under those exclusive rights guaranteed by copyright. Therefore, 'violation of license terms' is not a proper phrase, since the effect is copyright infringement. Yes, a license grants certain copyright privileges to the licensee. It also imposes conditions and constraints on those privileges. If you continue to exercise the copyright privileges without following the conditions, you are infringing the copyright. But the _reason_ you are infringing the copyright is that you are violating the conditions placed on the grant of copyright privileges. The general legal term is 'copyright infringement', but it's more useful and descriptive to call it a violation of the license. W.Yip was referring specifically to alterations to a an old bare license that had no subject matter and was only a set of terms. What say you if student (A) evolves by greater or lesser than 10% the terms of the said license so that it may be applied to a particular subject and then licensor (B) uses that license to grant copyright privileges in his code. Note that this set of terms included one which attempted to copyright the exact construction of the whole license but it failed because fair use allows at least for error correction and alterations based on the cultural experience afforded by time. My case in point is the WinGrid Free Public License which is based on the Aladdin Free Public License. The WFPL invites anyone to point out where its reformatting, error corrections and evolutionary dual licensing and viral enhancements to the AFPL have caused a violation or an infringement. http://ingrid.netpedia.net/wingrid_html/wingrid_free_public_license.htm
