Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Rick Moen wrote: Excuse me, but that's not what the clause in question says: In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. > Holder of the collective-work copyright implicitly acquires a "privilege of reproducing and distributing". Any change in terms for the collective work used for such reproduction and distribution that doesn't injure (in a legal sense) the interests of contributors would not create any actionable tort. Of course, it might be rude and unwise, but that's different from being a tort. Complications arise if contributors have explicit copyright / licence statements of their own -- and nobody's going to be able to successfully sue without registering his/her copyright claim (which hardly anyone does). Umm, right, sorry. Thanks for the correction: must've had a brain fart. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:42:59AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Complications arise if contributors have explicit copyright / licence > statements of their own -- and nobody's going to be able to successfully > sue without registering his/her copyright claim (which hardly anyone > does). I think this clears it up a little for me. Thx! -bill! ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Can you cite specific examples? That's kind of what I was complaining > that she didn't do. Tell you what: Write to the author. What she says accords with my own years of business law classes, but you probably want to hear something really specific. So, please do send her mail. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Again, I feel the HOWTO (rather, DRAFT HOWTO) is wrong. I note again, without making further comment, that this is squarely within one of the co-authors' professional expertise. (The text of the HOWTO is complete: What's "draft" is its status as an OSI working paper.) > The text of the actual law they specifically cite is rather explicit > that you receive only rights over your own contribution to the work, > in the absense of any explicit assignments. Excuse me, but that's not what the clause in question says: In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. Holder of the collective-work copyright implicitly acquires a "privilege of reproducing and distributing". Any change in terms for the collective work used for such reproduction and distribution that doesn't injure (in a legal sense) the interests of contributors would not create any actionable tort. Of course, it might be rude and unwise, but that's different from being a tort. Complications arise if contributors have explicit copyright / licence statements of their own -- and nobody's going to be able to successfully sue without registering his/her copyright claim (which hardly anyone does). ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Bill Kendrick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): What I THINK Micah is saying... or, at least, the concern >I< can think of having, as a developer of GPL software, is if I create something under GPL 2 with the "or later" clause, get dozens of contributions by others, and then GPL 3 comes out and I don't like it, I would imagine that I'd have to ask all of the other contributors[*] for permission to strike the "or later" clause in any subsequent releases/updates. Yup, that's what I'm saying. 1. Even aside from the broad rights one would have as the developer of a collective work, you could just drop the "or later" clause as to your portion of the code. But only to your own. 2. But as the Licensing HOWTO points out, the common assumption that such a developer must secure everyone else's permission as a matter of law (as opposed to courtesy and tradition) is incorrect. Again, I feel the HOWTO (rather, DRAFT HOWTO) is wrong. The text of the actual law they specifically cite is rather explicit that you receive only rights over your own contribution to the work, in the absense of any explicit assignments. I'm not sure how they read whatever they read into it, and if it's case law, then I'd like to see some references to decisions to that effect. Obviously, she's a lawyer, and I'm not: but I would like a little more backup than "because I say so." -Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Rick Moen wrote: It's their interpretation of a specific sentence in 17 USC 201 that I find extremely questionable. My point was that it _is_ the way copyright law is applied, as a result of a couple of hundred years of caselaw. Now, I'm sorry if that differs from what a lot of programmers assumed to be the case, but it's nonetheless true. Can you cite specific examples? That's kind of what I was complaining that she didn't do. It seems very strongly to go against what the actual text of the law says. -Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Quoting Bill Kendrick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > What I THINK Micah is saying... or, at least, the concern >I< can think of > having, as a developer of GPL software, is if I create something under > GPL 2 with the "or later" clause, get dozens of contributions by others, > and then GPL 3 comes out and I don't like it, I would imagine that I'd > have to ask all of the other contributors[*] for permission to strike > the "or later" clause in any subsequent releases/updates. 1. Even aside from the broad rights one would have as the developer of a collective work, you could just drop the "or later" clause as to your portion of the code. 2. But as the Licensing HOWTO points out, the common assumption that such a developer must secure everyone else's permission as a matter of law (as opposed to courtesy and tradition) is incorrect. > Sorry to just jump in like that. Not a problem! ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:03:30PM -0800, Bill Kendrick wrote: > [*] Assuming they didn't assign copyright to me. > FWIW, with my existing GPL stuff, I just use the GPL as-is, which > includes the "or later" clause. Meaning I _am_ up a creek if a > later version of the GPL is disagreeable. :^/ Err... "am", assuming I'm understanding all this. :^) -bill! ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:46:00PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > No. Once again: If you're the author, you are _not a recipient under > licence_ at all. Think about it. Licences are conditions (under either > bare copyright law or a contract) for recipients. As author, you're not > a recipient; you made the thing. Excuse my hazy brain, and the fact that I haven't read any of the references in question yet. What I THINK Micah is saying... or, at least, the concern >I< can think of having, as a developer of GPL software, is if I create something under GPL 2 with the "or later" clause, get dozens of contributions by others, and then GPL 3 comes out and I don't like it, I would imagine that I'd have to ask all of the other contributors[*] for permission to strike the "or later" clause in any subsequent releases/updates. [*] Assuming they didn't assign copyright to me. FWIW, with my existing GPL stuff, I just use the GPL as-is, which includes the "or later" clause. Meaning I _am_ up a creek if a later version of the GPL is disagreeable. :^/ Sorry to just jump in like that. I've been reading the thread, though not comprehending what everyone says, probably due to the fact that these cellphones at work are frustratign the HELL out of me today. :) -bill! ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > >As an author, you have no downside from "or later" if FSF issues a > >proprietary-leaning GPLv3, because (1) your recipients can always reject > >it and elect GPLv2, and (2) you would probably follow up latest release > >n with an n.001 that newly omitted the "or later". > > (2) is more or less pointless, though, as the code is already available > to people in GPLv3 now, until I (or others) have added sufficient code > to make it less attractive to "downgrade" to an older version of the > software. I think you're rather missing the point: Recipients would enjoy fewer rights, not more, under some hypothetically restrictive GPLv3. Ergo, they'd be getting nothing at your expense -- and then of course you simply omit that option from your subsequent code. > (2) is also impossible to execute if it is a collective-work, > collaboratively authored by enough other people that it would be > impractical to obtain their permission. Not correct. If you're the primary maintainer, you enjoy the broad rights described. If not, you specify what you want in your own specific copyright statement. > >I.e., obviously the threat of then forking release n-or-less under FSF's > >new restrictive terms isn't of concern. > > Less restrictive, more restrictive... licensing is a balance between > restriction on the developer and restriction on the user. Tell me something new. ;-> I hope my meaning was adequately clear. If not, I'm not doing that conversation again, sorry. > But if the GPL were to step a little further past the edge of what I > deem reasonable to give up as my owner privileges, that's when the "or > later" becomes a problem to me as an author. I've already explained why this is a chimera. > >>However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and > >>author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing). > > > >Then, you enjoy rights over the codebase without needing to accept the > >licence on any instance of it in the first place. > > I'm having problems parsing that sentence. One more time: If you're copyright owner, you enjoy inherent rights to your work without needing to accept the licence (if any) attached to any particular instance of your codebase. > But certainly, I enjoy only the rights specifically granted to me by the > license notice that is (hopefully) at the top of each source code file. No. Once again: If you're the author, you are _not a recipient under licence_ at all. Think about it. Licences are conditions (under either bare copyright law or a contract) for recipients. As author, you're not a recipient; you made the thing. > >>Reads a lot into 17 USC 201, > > > >Actually, into caselaw. > > Not sure what you mean here. Er, caselaw. You know, stare decisis? Statutes are interpreted in light of precedent and practice. > It's their interpretation of a specific sentence in 17 USC 201 that I > find extremely questionable. My point was that it _is_ the way copyright law is applied, as a result of a couple of hundred years of caselaw. Now, I'm sorry if that differs from what a lot of programmers assumed to be the case, but it's nonetheless true. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): As an /author/, I elect GPLv2 (no "or later"). As an author, you have no downside from "or later" if FSF issues a proprietary-leaning GPLv3, because (1) your recipients can always reject it and elect GPLv2, and (2) you would probably follow up latest release n with an n.001 that newly omitted the "or later". (2) is more or less pointless, though, as the code is already available to people in GPLv3 now, until I (or others) have added sufficient code to make it less attractive to "downgrade" to an older version of the software. (2) is also impossible to execute if it is a collective-work, collaboratively authored by enough other people that it would be impractical to obtain their permission. This is, of course, still assuming that the paragraph I indicated earlier as being an obvious misinterpretation, is in fact what I claim it to be. I.e., obviously the threat of then forking release n-or-less under FSF's new restrictive terms isn't of concern. Less restrictive, more restrictive... licensing is a balance between restriction on the developer and restriction on the user. GPL is relatively liberating to the user, and relatively restrictive to the developer (as a consequence, not as an intention). Proprietary licenses are liberating to the developer (well, no: IP owner) and restrictive to the user. But if the GPL were to step a little further past the edge of what I deem reasonable to give up as my owner privileges, that's when the "or later" becomes a problem to me as an author. While I cannot imagine a specific example, I'm sure it could exist. A little more possible: it could simultaneously be both more restrictive and more liberating in separate ways... or just more "different" in ways that I don't condone. The bottom line is that I want the person who decides the limits of what can happen to my code to be me, and no one else. This is why I dislike using the "or later." However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing). Then, you enjoy rights over the codebase without needing to accept the licence on any instance of it in the first place. I'm having problems parsing that sentence. But certainly, I enjoy only the rights specifically granted to me by the license notice that is (hopefully) at the top of each source code file. My understanding of the "or later" bit is that, if it is included, I could actually remove the "or later" part from all of the source code, and re-release it with my changes. But I would not feel comfortable doing so, and am still not entirely certain that's legal. Reads a lot into 17 USC 201, Actually, into caselaw. Not sure what you mean here. It's their interpretation of a specific sentence in 17 USC 201 that I find extremely questionable. -Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > As an /author/, I elect GPLv2 (no "or later"). As an author, you have no downside from "or later" if FSF issues a proprietary-leaning GPLv3, because (1) your recipients can always reject it and elect GPLv2, and (2) you would probably follow up latest release n with an n.001 that newly omitted the "or later". I.e., obviously the threat of then forking release n-or-less under FSF's new restrictive terms isn't of concern. What you might theoretically need to fear is FSF's v.3 terms being radically _more_ permissive. Then, suddenly someone can create a non-copyleft fork of n at any time, even as you develop n.001 and after under GPLv2 (as to your portion of the codebase, at least). Most people consider the likelihood of GPLv3 being non-copyleft to be minuscule. > However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and > author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing). Then, you enjoy rights over the codebase without needing to accept the licence on any instance of it in the first place. > Reads a lot into 17 USC 201, Actually, into caselaw. Catherine Olanich Raymond is a copyright attorney. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Rearranged to suit my purposes. > >>The beef I have with the "at your option" part is that you are placing >>the future of your code entirely within the hands of the FSF. Now, maybe >>those are good hands. But theoretically, the FSF could come out with a >>/completely/ different, and not necessarily better, license, and call it >>GPL 3.0. Maybe it's suddenly not even free (not that it's likely, but >>who knows what RMS's successors will be like?); or maybe it tweaks the >>definition of "free" in a way I don't like. > > > Then, you (the recipient) elect GPLv2. Well, yeah: as a recipient, I have no problem whatsoever with the "at your option" part. I will always choose whichever license gives me the most freedom, whether that's GPLv2, 3 or 27. As an /author/, I elect GPLv2 (no "or later"). However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing). In this case, my somewhat tenuous understanding is that I could actually elect to limit the entire body of code to GPLv2. But as IANAL, I would not feel very confident to do this, particularly if my own contribution were slight. If they had done the "version 2 or at your option" thing from the beginning, then they wouldn't have had to obtain agreement from other code contributors. Of likely interest: http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#id2790762 In reading that section, I've already seen what I believe to be a glaring error of legal interpretation. This paragraph in particular: A "collective work" is a creative work of a group of individuals who do not share a common copyright in the result. Individual portions of such a work may (and often do) have copyrights, and there may also be a collective-work copyright on the work as a whole. The difference is practically relevant because, according to 17 USC 201 the holder of the collective-work copyright is legally privileged to set the distribution terms for the package as a whole (in the statute, this expressed negatively as a statement that the collective-work copyright holder acquires only those rights). Reads a lot into 17 USC 201, more than I think is viable. I see nothing in the referenced text whatsoever that allows for the holder of the copyright on a portion of a collecive-work to "set the distribution terms for the package as a whole."---especially at the only part of the section that includes the referenced words, "acquires only those rights." If I believed this to be a legitimate reading, I'd be a helluva lot more scared. But I note that the document you've referred to is still in draft stage, so perhaps this position will be altered at a later date. As I've already said, IANAL, and one of the authors of the document you link to appears to be one, at any rate. But I'd at least like to see better justification for the paragraph I've quoted then I currently see in this document, or a reference to a case decision that bolsters this interpretation. (There is a case referenced a short ways down, but it's actually an unrelated point.) Regardless, it looks to be an informative document, and I'm interested in seeing how it reads in the end. Thanks for the link! -Micah ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]
Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > If they had done the "version 2 or at your option" thing from the > beginning, then they wouldn't have had to obtain agreement from other > code contributors. Of likely interest: http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#id2790762 > The beef I have with the "at your option" part is that you are placing > the future of your code entirely within the hands of the FSF. Now, maybe > those are good hands. But theoretically, the FSF could come out with a > /completely/ different, and not necessarily better, license, and call it > GPL 3.0. Maybe it's suddenly not even free (not that it's likely, but > who knows what RMS's successors will be like?); or maybe it tweaks the > definition of "free" in a way I don't like. Then, you (the recipient) elect GPLv2. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
