Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Justin Wells wrote: Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I thought there was a court decision in the US which determined that copying into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law. It's not clear to me that you are entitled to copy a program into RAM just because you are the owner and have ordinary copy rights. This term "copy rights" is misleading if it means (as I suppose) "the rights of the owner of a copy", as it looks too much like "copyrights". It might be that there is some implicit right to copy a program into RAM for the purpose of executing it, if you own the program. *sigh* Not implicit but *explicit*. Title 17, Section 117, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs", which became law in 1980, is unmistakably clear: # Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement # for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the # making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: # # (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step # in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine # and that it is used in no other manner [...]. Since you cannot run a program without copying it into RAM, 117(1) clearly creates a safe harbor for this kind of copying, without regard to the copyright owner's rights. So don't worry already: if you own the program free and clear (no restrictive EULA license) you can run it on any computer you like, and any number of computers that you want, and the copyright owner has nothing to say. (The rest of Section 117 has to do with making archival backups, and the rule that you can transfer them if and only if you transfer the original with them.) -- 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: Wired Article on the GPL
From the U.S. Copyright Act: "ยง 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." Your mileage may vary in other countries. From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:52:55 -0400 On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:57:34PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Running the program is not part of the copyright rights-bundle: when you acquire the program sans EULA-style license, you are an owner of that copy, and you can run it because that is analogous to reading a book that you own. Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I thought there was a court decision in the US which determined that copying into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law. It's not clear to me that you are entitled to copy a program into RAM just because you are the owner and have ordinary copy rights. It might be that there is some implicit right to copy a program into RAM for the purpose of executing it, if you own the program. Justin __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
RE: Wired Article on the GPL
Justin Wells wrote: Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I thought there was a court decision in the US which determined that copying into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law. Yes. The case is the Mai Systems case, and it's now the law of the land in the U.S. and elsewhere. It's not clear to me that you are entitled to copy a program into RAM just because you are the owner and have ordinary copy rights. This term "copy rights" is misleading if it means (as I suppose) "the rights of the owner of a copy", as it looks too much like "copyrights". "Copyright" oes refer to a bundle of rights. It does not, however, refer to the owner of a copy, but, instead, to the copyright holder. Consequently, copying a program into RAM constitutes a copy, and an infringement suit could be based on that kind of copying. Nonetheless, RAM copy cases are often reverse engineering cases that plaintiffs frequently lose. It might be that there is some implicit right to copy a program into RAM for the purpose of executing it, if you own the program. *sigh* Not implicit but *explicit*. Yes. Title 17, Section 117, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs", which became law in 1980, is unmistakably clear: # Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement # for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the # making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: # # (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step # in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine # and that it is used in no other manner [...]. Since you cannot run a program without copying it into RAM, 117(1) clearly creates a safe harbor for this kind of copying, without regard to the copyright owner's rights. So don't worry already: if you own the program free and clear (no restrictive EULA license) you can run it on any computer you like, and any number of computers that you want, and the copyright owner has nothing to say. (The rest of Section 117 has to do with making archival backups, and the rule that you can transfer them if and only if you transfer the original with them.) Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Richard Watts wrote: Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but, critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my binaries - that's a consideration. It's clearly valuable. Shaky. It requires you to distribute source code only if you distribute binaries. In which case I must distribute my modified source code back to him. This is consideration - it goes beyond a plain licence to do something: not only _can_ I distribute the source, I _must_ - and it's valuable, and the fact that it's contingent is entirely irrelevant - people make contingent contracts all the time. But here the contingency is that the contractor do something else which he is free to do or not do. IANAL, as I have often said before, but that smells funny to me. As to contractability, a contract exists wherever both parties intend to bind themselves. The author clearly intends to bind himself, or he wouldn't've offered the GPL. If the GPL really is an offer. But if it is a bare license, then he is not binding himself, but simply stating his permission. You can rely on that permission unless you know or should have known that it has been revoked. The recipient can avoid binding himself by rejecting the GPL, but if he accepts, must accept the conditions of section (3), and we therefore have a contract. As I posted before, I think this talk of "accepting" or "rejecting" the GPL has no foundation. I guess this depends on whether you've decided if there's consideration or not. Either way, if you exercise the permission to make object files, To make *and distribute* object files. then don't distribute the source code with them under section 3, you're arguably in breach of something, and if it isn't contract, it must be copyright. Indeed, it is infringement of copyright. You are doing something that a) is a right reserved to the copyright owner by law, and b) is not covered by the permissions the owner has granted you. -- 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: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:09:35 -0500, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly.
You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on
distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no
legal recourse for distribution.
You can "accept" the GPL by exercising your rights under the GPL in accordance
with its terms, or you can "reject" the GPL by not exercising your rights.
But this is not acceptance as understood in discussing contracts. That
would be like saying you "reject" your constitutional right of free speech
by remaining silent. You still have your rights, you just aren't exercising
them. And if what you want is to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (when
there is no fire), your free speech rights will not help you.
The GPL is crystal clear on what indicates acceptance.
s.5 GPL states,'Therefore, by *modifying* or *distributing* the program (or
any work based on the Program, you indicate your acceptance of this license
to do so, and all its terms and conditions ... {blah...blah...blah...}'
I noticed that 'copying' is not indicative of acceptance? Is this
significant in some way?
If you choose to not accept the license, then you can't use the software.
Definitely not true of GPLed software. You may not copy, distribute, or
create derivative works except under the terms of the GPL. But you can use
the software on one machine or many; you can study the software to determine
how it does what it does, etc. etc.
In this way the GPL is unlike proprietary licenses, where indeed you cannot
use the software unless you have accepted the license (but under UCITA,
using counts as accepting).
[Why does GPL have section *zero* ?]
s. 0 GPL, 'Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope...The act of
running the Program is not restricted...{blah...blah...blah}'
Upon this is superimposed the fair use doctrine.
If you are saying you can use GPL software even if you do not accept the
GPL terms under which it is released, I must say I have my doubts.
'...they are outside its scope'.
The above is ambiguous. Outside its scope of *permission* or *restriction*?
'The act of running the Program is not restricted.'
This is not very helpful either. It is 'not restricted'. Does that mean
(i) it is permitted, or does it mean
(ii) the ordinary copyright rules (ie. fair use + exclusivity) apply?
If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of
luck.
Can a copyright owner revoke a license which has no 'revocation' clause? It
seems that other licenses, such as the APSL, were scrupulous in including
such a clause so as to be able to revoke the license.
Sure. If I grant you bare permission to do something, with no reciprocal
promise on your part, I can change my mind whenever I like, thus:
"Here, use my carno, I lied. You can't."
The previous license will not help you now.
Courts (at least UK) are not in favour of dishonesty, as in your example
involving lying, and there are remedies under the law of equity such as
injunctions and specific performance which can go against your revocation.
Depending on facts, a licensee can also establish 'detrimental reliance'
under the doctrine of estoppel.
Revocation clauses are of the same ilk as disclaimers in that they are
often very harsh on the consumer. In most cases, it would depend on the way
the clause is phrased.
The law on license revocation has a long history in UK. Unfortunately, most
of these pertain to the context of land and other tangibles.
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Richard Watts: Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based on the software he's written, even if none of it was actually distributed to him [...] I've got a better argument there (though, of course, IANAL): What makes a consideration valuable to a person depends on his value system. For example, most people like money, but some people care about other things more. So if free software is important to the original author, I would call an addition to the body of free software a "valuable consideration". And surely a test case would prominently feature the original author testifying to that effect. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to John Cowan: Richard Watts wrote: Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but, critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my binaries - that's a consideration. It's clearly valuable. Shaky. It requires you to distribute source code only if you distribute binaries. Well, consider the possibility that we can get a court to agree that the GPL is an enforceable contract if binaries are distributed. Isn't that really the situation we are most concerned about? -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:51:06 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Richard Watts: Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based on the software he's written, even if none of it was actually distributed to him [...] I've got a better argument there (though, of course, IANAL): What makes a consideration valuable to a person depends on his value system. For example, most people like money, but some people care about other things more. So if free software is important to the original author, I would call an addition to the body of free software a "valuable consideration". And surely a test case would prominently feature the original author testifying to that effect. No. In UK law your analysis would not work because consideration is not subjective. It does not have to be considered adequate by the parties for existence of a contract. This means that a disparity in value between the articles or acts or omissions exchanged does not prevent a finding of consideration. It must be of *some* economic value, but acts or omissions of very small value can be consideration. As for intangibles like promises and forbearance, it must be recognised as having economic value before it can take on the status of consideration. Extremely trivial objects have be regarded as consideration, ranging from chocolate wrappers to 'worthless' gaming chips In my first year as a law student in UK, a primary issue in the tutorial on consideration involved questioning whether this construct ought to be necessary at all. Indeed, there is considerable academic opinion that it should be abolished. Primarily this is because it is a very uncertain legal construct that inhibits business (we are now wasting time talking about it aren't we?), while it is always down to the (arbitrary) decision of the courts at the end of the day. Apparently, in some jurisdictions consideration is not required for a contractual formation. IMHO, consideration is one of those moot points best left for discussion on the specific facts when a dispute arises, after which the best argument wins. see, for UK, pg. 79 Treitel, G.H. "Law of Contract 9th Ed." Sweet and Maxwell. IANAL (yet)
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:52:32PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote: Well, consider the possibility that we can get a court to agree that the GPL is an enforceable contract if binaries are distributed. Isn't that really the situation we are most concerned about? Not only that, but I think it's easy to find consideration even when someone even distributes the software verbatim. My client recently released some software I wrote under contract as opensource software. I convinced my client to do this with economic arguments like this: #1 We will receive some bug fixes and improvements for free on this bit of infrastructure software, and that will be valuable to us, by saving us development $$$. #2 The kinds of people we are trying to hire will like that we have released some of our software as opensource, and so it will be a little easier to attract good programmers. This will be of value to us as well, since better programmers produce more and better code for fewer $$$. Those are our goals. The software license we release under offers us two types of valuable consideration: -- By requiring that source code be shared, it helps us achieve goal #1. -- By requiring that we be credited on derivative works, it helps us establish our reputation and achieve goal #2. Actually in our case we didn't use the GPL and the license we did use does not include any requirement to share code--though we *still* expect to receive code in return (and in fact, we have got some). It ought not to be difficult for a judge to find that there is valuable consideration in most opensource software license. For one thing, any license which requires crediting the original opensource author ensures that any distribution of their work amounts to free advertising of the authors expertise. That is valuable consideration in my eyes. My other software that I released under an opensource license has established my reputation and helped me find clients, win contracts, and charge higher fees, all on the basis of the reputation established for me by my opensource software. Everyone who distributes my software, uses it, etc., is helping build my reputation. Justin
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:03:08 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to W . Yip: As for intangibles like promises and forbearance, it must be recognised as having economic value before it can take on the status of consideration. I see. Thank you for grounding my speculation. (I suppose that's why an insurance contract _is_ a contract, then ... though the insurance company has given me nothing but a promise, that promise will be of economic value if fulfilled?) in UK, I am not familiar with insurance law. I am cannot tell you *absolutely* whether the assurance can be consideration. I have the impression that insurance tends to use standard form contracts clearly stating your position, but I may be wrong. From my understanding of contract law, in your insurance example it is more appropriate to regard *your* payment of insurance premiums as consideration, instead of the insurer's promise to pay when you break a leg or something to that effect. Under UK Contract law, while (i) consideration must move *from* the promisee, (ii) consideration need not necessarily move *to* the promisor (but it can). This means a promisor can simply contract with the promisee in a way which the promisor derives no benefit and the promisee suffers a detriment. There are cases where giving up a job (Jones v. Padavatton) or tenancy of a flat (Tanner v. Tanner) has been held as valid consideration, where the other party to the contract enjoyed no corresponding benefit. This is the reason why I say your payment of insurance premiums is consideration, and not likely the promise by the insurance company. It can sometimes be difficult to determine who is promisor and who is promisee, but for the GPL, I suppose the licensor is the promisor (promising rights and making the 'offer', particularly since the GPL speaks of what constitutes 'acceptance' in s.5) and the licensee is promisee (promising abstinence from non-complaint distribution). IMHO, consideration is one of those moot points best left for discussion on the specific facts when a dispute arises, after which the best argument wins. Hm. Does that mean that if the GPL is tested in court, it is likely that the ruling will likely be narrow, based on the definitions of 'consideration' used by the involved parties? (IYO, of course.) IMHO, I do not regard 'consideration' as determining the case such that the ruling will be based on its definition. I think it relevant only for purposes of finding the *existence of a contract* in jurisdictions where (i) the UCITA does not apply, and (ii) contractual formation requires 'consideration'. A finding of the GPL as contractual license would make it much harder for revocation, this being so because the permission in the license is transformed into a contractual obligation. IANAL (yet)
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thursday 30 March 2000, W. Yip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:47:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it turns out that that's not what they meant. The Wired article is just written poorly. Someone on Slashdot quoted the actual law that they *were* referring to: Having gone through the following, I still fail to see how FSF fits into the picture. Was wired.com merely doing some publicity for FSF? --- USC 17 205 E (e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. - A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized agent, and if - (1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or (2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and without notice of it. --- IANAL, but from an English perspective, there's nothing in that paragraph that says that an informal nonexclusive licence shouldn't take priority over a later, formal transfer. In the absence of the condition in the clause holding that, the court can make up its own mind. That *could* mean that if there is a signed contract, then the GPL takes priority--and conversely, if there wasn't a signed contract, then Mattel's ownership takes priority. The above makes sense. *Imagine* Microsoft being bought by XXX company tomorrow. You do not want to have your license to Windows being revoked would you (really) ? Microsoft couldn't do that anyway: they can't exclusively sell to XXX rights they have already contracted away to you - this is just a case of selling something twice, and XXX will just have to sue Microsoft for it. By analogy, if I (M) sold you (A) a car, then sold the same car to B, B would have the right to sue me for the cost he paid for the car that was owned by you. He wouldn't have the right to sue you for delivery up of the car. That argument, I think, will work (in the sense of not being fatally flawed) provided US law treats IP rights as property - UK law does, but I don't know what US law does in this situation. Also, the UK has no such provision, so the GPL should take precedence. [snip] From what you have quoted, the USC 17 205 does *not* address the rub of the GPL situation, which is about a recurring 'chain of licenses'. It is this element involving unlimited distribution which Mattel aims to stop. Quite. Unfortunately, from the GPL : - 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. And section 4 goes in the same vein: rights are granted to you to grant rights to others - the rights do not flow directly from the authors, so I don't see how Mattel can attack the chain of distribution. The USC 17 205 only seems to address the single license, from one individual to another. Again, I don't know about US law, but I don't believe there's anything in English law which distinguishes a licence allowing sublicencing. [snip] It's still a little strained to interpret it that way. It doesn't say outright what happens without a signed contract, so it might only mean that it doesn't *automatically* prevail without one, not that it can't prevail at all. I think it safe to assume that in absence of a 'written instrument' a license is exhausted by the act of copyright transfer. Why ? This is because, without a 'written instrument' the license is almost certainly a bare license - ie. plain permission. One cannot claim permission to an article subsists even after ownership of the article has passed. I don't see why: contracts can perfectly happily be informal. The big problem, AFAICS, is going to be consideration: I'm not sure a court will buy the idea of fame as a consideration, unless (1) there's precedent, or (2) it really wants to. Other than that, since the GPL doesn't provide any obligations more binding than those you would have to adhere to anyway if you didn't accept it, I don't see how there can be consideration. Now, if you were to modify the GPL so that you agreed to jump up and down twice every Thursday, that might make it a contract. If you were feeling audacious, you could argue that the lack of warranty makes consideration - that there would be an implied warranty if you used the software indirectly, without agreeing to the GPL (for example, by visiting a website using the software), and that GPL explicitly disclaims it so you are giving up something valuable. But
RE: Wired Article on the GPL - Signed Licenses?
Although we are getting far afield from the structure of open-source licenses, there seem to be some procedural and technical steps someone could take to ensure that a license is perpetuated, especially for digitally-conveyed works and licenses to those works. There are moves afoot to establish the legal acceptability of digital signatures and their non-repudiation qualities. I don't want to substitute technology for common sense, but this does seem to promise a way to be clear what (1) the licensed work is, and (2) the authenticity of the license (or even notice). It might even provide a mechanism for "affixing" a license to a copy of the work even though the elements are physically separated. A. USING DIGITAL SIGNATURES TO CONVEY LICENSES It is interesting that employing digital signatures to establish the authenticity of open-source distributions is already on the rise. Here is what I noticed: 1. If I provide a license statement in digital form, which is digitally signed, a recipient can confirm whether the license has indeed been signed according to an accompanying certificate, and whether the document is unaltered. That establishes signature and that the license is a true copy of the signed material. Then the "usual" mechanisms come into play with regard to determining whether (a) the signature is authentic and can be trusted and is indeed non-repudiatable and (b) whether I have the right to convey such a license, signed or not. [That is, we are in the same place that we are with conventional written instruments.] 2. I can, as part of the signed license document, provide certificate information that is usable to confirm signatures on the digital copies of the covered works themselves. These can be incorporated in the signed material of (1), and be an intrinsic part of the signed material. I see some weaknesses in this step, but no more so than with the EULA I have in front of me pertaining to a massive amount of software that I just installed on my development computer. 3. Various secure repository (certificate authority) mechanisms are used to establish the provenance of a digital certificate of particular quality. Along with this, there can be deposit mechanisms for licenses (just as there is or at least was a way to record copyright assignments for registered copyrights). It would be valuable to have a repository where licenses could be recorded/deposited so that someone researching the status of a copyright and its assignments/licenses could find them. I don't know that the U.S. Copyright Office would be particularly happy to provide that, but who knows. It would certainly depend on having registered the copyright, though. 4. Digital signature techniques are being used to provide more confidence in the authenticity and provenance of digital material, permitting trust against substitution of altered or counterfeit works that may be dangerous to users of the work. They also provide a level of commitment by an authentic signer that the work (including the license) is not repudiatable. None of these provisions prevent someone from forging a work or making fraudulent exclusive transfers. It is just harder to do it without incriminating oneself. It also depends on due diligence on the part of recipients of such materials. B. EARTH TO DENNIS, EARTH TO DENNIS ... I notice that the EULA I am looking at right now is not "signed" although I have every reason to believe that it is authentic. The box within which the software was packed even had an affixed "certificate of authenticity," and I guess I should retain that with my EULA, the CD-ROMS, the CD-ROM "key," and the proof-of-purchase. I purchased the software over the Internet. I have registered myself as the purchaser using the on-line mechanism provided as part of the software installation process. I suspect that's quite enough for me and the software vendor, either one, to establish the likelihood that I have purchased their software and that I am a party to the accompanying EULA, which I also recall "clicking-through" as part of the software installation process. I can't imagine what either of us might do that would have this be in dispute. I will hold onto the materials anyhow. I also notice that there are a number of digital certificates included in the software collection. Although a number of them have expired (that is a problem with these things), I have strong reason to believe that they are authentic. -- Dennis -- Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com -Original Message- From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 04:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL [ ... ] --- USC 17 205 E (e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. - A
Re: Wired Article on the GPL - Signed Licenses?
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: I notice that the EULA I am looking at right now is not "signed" although I have every reason to believe that it is authentic. The statutory requirement applies to copyright licenses, which the GPL is but the EULA is 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: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Mark Wielaard: But the main document (the actual essay cp4break.html) says: "The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it." "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you see fit." Well, that about wraps it up for Mattel. Or it should, anyway. :-( -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to W . Yip: A purchaser, particularly a bona fide one, may not know anything about the licenses attached to a copyright which he is purchasing, and thus deserves protection from copyright holders who may be dishonest. Surely, though, that theory doesn't help Mattel -- they *did* know about the free distribution license of cphack. It was what drew their attention in the first place! -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Chip Salzenberg wrote: But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. Not obvious, probably not true. Licenses are personal, in general, and a license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a trespasser. -- 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: Wired Article on the GPL
According to John Cowan: Chip Salzenberg wrote: In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a trespasser. *shock* *dismay* I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
RE: Wired Article -- Nullifying a GPL?
I looked at what I could find on Wired, thanks to the Slashdot discussion and its links. 1. UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS? One problem I notice is that we don't have a finding with regard to the validity of the copyright by the original distributors of cphack. Part of the Mattel claim was that this work was the product of an infringement. I gather that the parties have settled, but I don't know what has been stipulated concerning the validity of the cphack copyright and therefore any purported licensing of it. The cited property transfer is prudently noncommittal on that score. I would say that leaves much of the "fiasco" in place, depending on what the judge makes of all of this. I have neither information nor further opinion about the actual case. 2. HEY BUDDY, WANNA BUY A WATCH? GENUINE ROLEX! I do see an interesting question over what happens when any published work is tainted by a problem over the ownership of the intellectual property embodied therein. I've never heard of anything that will insulate a recipient of software from the consequences of that material not being the property of the supplier/license-writer. I've seen contracts that held a purchaser harmless from any intellectual property issue, but they were written by suppliers who could be reasonably counted on to perform, and the monetary considerations were considerable (e.g., purchase of large mainframe computer systems). I don't notice anything about that in the 7-page software EULA I happen to have in front of me. I do notice that section 7 of the GPL (Version 2, June 1991) does have language which may be pertinent and which may have bearing in the Mattel-cphack case too. The outcomes tend to be limited to what is practical. But willful redistribution of a tainted work (e.g., copies of a believed-to-be-pirated audio recording or electronic novel) is not smart behavior, any more than is quickly reselling an automobile that you purchased with the strong suspicion that it was stolen. Or hastily spending that $20 bill you were given that you are pretty sure is counterfeit. So, "do you feel lucky, ...?" I have no basis for determining or assuming that the GPL-ing of cphack has been nullified or made void. I do think we are seeing an area where trustworthy sources become important. In particular, the presence (or in this case, simple mention) of the GPL in material, as for any license, depends for its authority on the legitimacy of the claim of property right on which the license is founded. Of course, we will trust these things. But I think it is important to understand that it is all about trust relationships. Sometimes, these don't work out, and we are left with a challenge to behave responsibly and diligently. -- Dennis -Original Message- From: Chip Salzenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chip Salzenberg Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:16 To: W . Yip Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL According to W . Yip: On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:49:49 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that right, the original authors are not able to transfer it. Mattel's lawyers would certainly disagree with you on this one. They probably would stand by their contract and claim that copyright has been assigned to them. Oh, I won't argue that point. Mattel certainly owns the copyright. But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. Frankly, I'm stunned that Mattel is even bringing this argument. They (or the department in question) must be in a full-blown panic. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Chip Salzenberg wrote: A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a trespasser. I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' IANAL, but there's always the possibility of a court ruling that recipients of GPL software are providing consideration, so it's a contract. If you distribute a binary, the consideration might be that you distribute the source. Putting one's own code under GPL if linked with GPL might also be consideration--I don't think consideration has to directly benefit the original copyright owner to count as consideration. The FSF really should get involved in this, because the implications of this question are obviously pretty big.
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Nils Lohner: This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? No, no, you've confused license with contract. If you buy the software, then there is an exchange of considerations, so there is a (sale) contract involved, and all the rules change. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Nils Lohner wrote: This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? I would argue that I should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never had a chance to acept or reject the other license. Use your imagination to add some fun clauses to new license :) Somehow this does not seem logical, reasonable, etc. Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject the GPL; it grants you permissions whether you want them or not. If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. -- 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: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thursday 30 March 2000, Nils Lohner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chip Salzenberg writes: According to John Cowan: Chip Salzenberg wrote: In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a trespasser. *shock* *dismay* I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? No. If you buy the software, there's a contract, and that contract is binding. It's only if you get the software completely free, without having to give anything (valuable) away for it that there is no contract, because a contract requires a valuable consideration from both parties. Though ISTR that some European legal systems do recognise the existence of gratuitous contracts, so the Frenchmen in the audience may be safe(r). Don't count on it though - IANAL... I would argue that I should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never had a chance to acept or reject the other license. If Mattel change the licence, you aren't necessarily bound by the new licence - you can choose to destroy your copies of the software and walk away. Indeed, it doesn't seem likely that Mattel will be licencing this particular bit of software at all :-). Richard.
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote: Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject the GPL; it grants you permissions whether you want them or not. Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly. You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no legal recourse for distribution. I haven't been following this discussion too closely (I have, in fact, made several attempts to unsubscribe per the directions sent to me when I subscribed), but regardless of whether a license is very restrictive, and regardless of whether the author of the license chooses to call it a "copyleft," it's a license granting rights over copyrighted material. If you choose to not accept the license, then you can't use the software. Of course, there's no reason to *not* accept the GPL, if you're not planning on doing any distribution or derivative works, since your use is not restricted. But it's still an option. If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. Can a copyright owner revoke a license which has no 'revocation' clause? It seems that other licenses, such as the APSL, were scrupulous in including such a clause so as to be able to revoke the license. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote: Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly. You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no legal recourse for distribution. You can "accept" the GPL by exercising your rights under the GPL in accordance with its terms, or you can "reject" the GPL by not exercising your rights. But this is not acceptance as understood in discussing contracts. That would be like saying you "reject" your constitutional right of free speech by remaining silent. You still have your rights, you just aren't exercising them. And if what you want is to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire), your free speech rights will not help you. If you choose to not accept the license, then you can't use the software. Definitely not true of GPLed software. You may not copy, distribute, or create derivative works except under the terms of the GPL. But you can use the software on one machine or many; you can study the software to determine how it does what it does, etc. etc. In this way the GPL is unlike proprietary licenses, where indeed you cannot use the software unless you have accepted the license (but under UCITA, using counts as accepting). If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. Can a copyright owner revoke a license which has no 'revocation' clause? It seems that other licenses, such as the APSL, were scrupulous in including such a clause so as to be able to revoke the license. Sure. If I grant you bare permission to do something, with no reciprocal promise on your part, I can change my mind whenever I like, thus: "Here, use my carno, I lied. You can't." The previous license will not help you now. -- 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: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:39:10PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject the GPL; it grants you permissions whether you want them or not. If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. If this is true, it's awful. That means that I can release some software for "free" under the GPL, wait until everyone is using it, and then suddenly say "Hey guys, guess what? I feel like getting rich--please all send me $5000 or stop using my software. I revoke the GPL." That CAN'T be right. If it is right, we need a quick revision to the GPL to fix this problem. Justin
Wired Article on the GPL
Wired has a rather interesting article on the GPL in relation to the suit by Mattel re: cphack. I was wondering what people thought of the merrits of the statements, and specifically what I as a developer need to do to protect my works from such loopholes. Ie, how do I sign over my rights to the FSF? Is there a form? Who do I send it to? I was actually very surprised to hear about this, as I had never heard anyone suggest that or even mention it might be a good idea. I was under the impression that I just had to put the GPL banner in the code and include a copy of the license in my tarball... -- Aaron Turner, Core Developer http://vodka.linuxkb.org/~aturner/ Linux Knowledge Base Organization http://www.linuxkb.org/ Because world domination requires quality open documentation. aka: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference between `Unstable' and `Usable' is only two characters: NT
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
G'day all. On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:11:20AM +0100, W. Yip wrote: Fellas, this seems to be the type of dispute we have been waiting for. Is it too late to grab a copy of cphack now? Will I or won't I be able to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if they _do_ revoke the GPL on cphack if I've obtained my copy after the lawsuit was filed? And are my chances better or worse living in a country where we don't have a UCITA? Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Andrew J Bromage: Will I or won't I be able to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if they _do_ revoke the GPL on cphack if I've obtained my copy after the lawsuit was filed? [IANAL] I suspect you'd be eligible even if you got it now, as long as you got it through a channel that depends on the GPL for its legality. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
