Moglen On Enforcing The GPL 309
jdavidb writes: "The GNU Project has a new essay today by Eben Moglen, general legal counsel for GNU, about enforcing the GPL. People ranting about the GPL not holding up in court should read this. Very interesting, but I felt that this paragraph looked bad: 'In such situations we work with organizations to establish GPL-compliance programs within their enterprises, led by senior managers who report to us, and directly to their enterprises' managing boards, regularly.' I'm all for the GPL, but this sounds suspiciously like an Software Publishers' Association audit. On the other hand, circumstances of something like this would be completely different, i.e., illegally taking copyright privileges over software you didn't write, as opposed to illegally copying software." Actually, I also think they sound alike in certain ways, but that it makes sense -- since both are about unauthorized reproduction of software. I like the FSF's terms a lot more. Update: 09/18 19:53 PM GMT by T : As Dr. Nonsense points out, davidb "probably meant the dreaded audits by the Business Software Alliance," rather than the SPA.
big difference (Score:2, Insightful)
If the FSF were making deals that required organizations to only use free software internally, then you could draw comparisons with the SPA.
GPL Issue (and maybe solution?) (Score:2)
It seems that a major concern of the GPL is that if you just USE a program, you do not have to accept the terms of the GPL. By refusing to accept the terms of the GPL, you are also refusing not to hold the authors of the software liable for any failures, leaving the authors open to potential lawsuit.
Solution? Maybe a particular license, in the same fashion as the closed source houses do, disclaiming liability in the event of failure, which must be accepted before the user may begin using the program. This would be in addition to the GPL, which also does the same thing.
Of course, I may be talking about a non-issue, but this seemed like as good a time as any to ask the question.
Re:GPL Issue (and maybe solution?) (Score:2)
I believe it's a non-issue. The warranty terms of the program are not defined by the GPL (except the default no warranty); rather the GPL forces the author and redistributors to explicitly publish your warranty (or lack thereof). Under GPL terms and conditions:
(The copyright notice is separate from the warranty.) And indeed the notice suggested by the GPL is:
(again) You're supposed to separate the warranty notice from the GPL notice.
Trying to sue based on that would be akin to sueing for banging your knee on the bottom of a swimming pool when all the signs say "no lifeguard, swim at your own risk" .. it'd make for a hard court case. (I hate analogies, but oh well)
mod up ^^ (Score:2)
Re:GPL Issue (and maybe solution?) (Score:2)
If you give or sell me some copyrighted code, fair use provisions allow me to execute it.
Re:GPL Issue (and maybe solution?) (Score:2)
Re:GPL Issue (and maybe solution?) (Score:2)
(Yes, by now, it's probably -1 Redundant. Deal with it.)
"accepting the license" (Score:2)
do "nothing" in order for the license
to apply.
I just read an article in a law review newsletter
on the GPL that disagrees with him, and lists
several conditions the author believes
someone would have to have taken in order to
get a court to agree that he agreed to a license.
The author continues, and I think that Eben would agree, that under such circumstances, the GPL
and its provisions are null and void - the case
becomes a simple matter of copyright infringement.
Thus, the "license breaker" could not be
forced to release their own source code.
The article is not online unfortunately,
else I would have posted it here.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
But what action implies agreement with the GPL? Where do I "sign" before I implement the GPL'ed code in my project?
The article you mention may be right, that there is a problem here. Perhaps you could give the volume, issue, and page number of the article?
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
Since you are not the copyright holder, you have no rights to sell, or redistribute, or make copies (other than for personal use) of the software. The software comes with a licence that, if you choose to accept it, allows you to do that with some restrictions (i.e. you must use the GPL). If you do not accept the licence, you must make other arrangements with the copyright holder if you wish to distribute the software.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
The Copyright and the License are two separate legal documents. In the case of the GPL, Copyright governs all use of the software, including use and development. But the GPL is a License which only applies to how developers use the source code.
That is what the fellow says in the article, isn't it?
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
The copyright is not a legal document. Copyright is a right. The right of an author to prevent anyone and everyone from copying his or her work.
In order to legally copy an author's work, you must have a license from the author to copy it. Typically, authors license their works to publishing companies who then pay them.
Now, if you get GPLed source, you don't have the right to distribute it. Unless you accept the GPL.
If you do distribute it against the terms of the GPL, you'll get charged with, not GPL violation, but copyright infringement. Since the works are copyrighted, you'll have to argue that you have a license to copy them. But the only license you can have the is the GPL. Only you didn't follow its terms, so your license isn't valid. . .
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
But I was actually talking about a legal right that has various implementations is different jurisdictions. It's true that others could provide a more nuanced description of copyright than I did.
While I wasn't trying to cover the possibilities of dual licensing or private licensing, I tried leave room for that possibility. In fact, some of my GPLed code is separately licensed to the company I work for, in excange for being able to copy modifications made at work back into the GPLed version.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
forced to release their own source code.
His remedy is better though - go to redistributors and customers and say "why are you paying for this stolen code when you could get it for free?"
From the article:
``Why would you want to pay serious money,'' we have asked, ``for software that infringes our license and will bog you down in complex legal problems, when you can have the real thing for free?'' Customers have never failed to see the pertinence of the question. The stealing of free software is one place where, indeed, crime doesn't pay.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
This is true, but I'm guessing that many companies who have infringed the GPL (especially if it was deliberate) would rather settle with the copyright holder and release the derivative code as part of the settlement rather than be dragged to court to face the consequences of their actions. It is also much more attractive than the bad publicity they would receive by openly stealing code from a free software developer. A lawyer friend of mine once told me that the goal of any good lawyer is to avoid court and craft a favorable settlement instead. In this respect, Moglen is doing a superb job.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
I don't think anybody implied that the infringer would be forced to release his own code, and I don't really see how that's a problem. The bottom line is that they would be forced to stop infringing. They could choose to release their own code, they could replace the GPL'd code with their own, or they could choose to stop providing the product altogether. Any of these is fine.
No need to accept a license for copyright to work (Score:2)
If you didn't agree to the GPL (or get permission from the copyright holder in some other way), you're not allowed to make copies. Not because of the GPL itself but because that's how copyright works.
The reason why shrink-wrap licenses are prevalent for more conventional SW is that they take away rights that you would otherwise have (if you didn't agree to the license). The GPL does none of that -- it only grants you rights that you wouldn't normally have. Sigh.
Re:No need to accept a license for copyright to wo (Score:2)
Re:No need to accept a license for copyright to wo (Score:2)
Nevertheless it is worth something, and if it happened a lot, punative damages to discourage such behavior in general increases in probability.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
However... It could be argued (as usual, IANAL) that community norms imply that one reads the README file prior to use.
Also, most programs that I've looked at have some info in the top of the main.c saying this is released under GPL, must agree before use, etc.
So what if someone just doesn't look at the source but instead types 'make && make install'? No problem. Have the default target point to something that says "This is released under GPL..."
I'm in no way disagreeing with you that proving acceptance is difficult, but I believe there are a few ways of proving this that, while not black letter law, are certainly not a giant leap of legalistic faith.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
Where it kicks in is if somebody want to redistribute the original works or a derivative. Since distributing copies of copyrighted work is illegal, a license is needed from the copyright holder. Normally, you would have to contact the copyright holder and negotiate terms. In the case of GPL'd software, a license is provided with the software. If you agree to that license, then you can distribute the software. Without agreeing to the license, you are breaking the law by distributing the software.
That's why the GPL has never been to court, and most likely never will. If you argue that you didn't accept the terms of the GPL, you would be confessing to breaking copyright law! If you claimed that you didn't accept the license, I'm sure the FSF would be happy to let that assertion stand in court.
"Counsel, didn't your client agree to the terms of the GPL?"
"No sir, your honor. My client never accepted the license, and in fact never even read the included LICENSE file. Instead, he commited criminal and civil copyright violations by distributing copyrighted software without a license!".
Not a good way to get repeat business.
Try this on for size... (Score:2)
judge: "Very well, I find that permission was given by the author to download and make any use whatsoever of the offered materials, including modifications and creations of derivative works, without any further agreement being needed."
plaintiff: "I object! When my client said 'Free Software' he meant free as in free speech! In other places it is made clear that the software is only offered under the terms of the GPL."
defense: "The meaning of 'free' as applied to a downloadable product is well established as meaning without cost or restriction."
judge: "I agree. The author gave permission for unrestricted use, essentially releasing it into the public domain, by referring to it as 'free' and suggesting that people download it in that sentence. Any other offer of more restrictive license terms is irrelevant."
Think about it. What permissions are implicitly offered by the author, without reference to the GPL? I think that there are a great many circumstances in which a judge can find that GPL'd software has effectively been released into the public domain.
Re:Try this on for size... (Score:2)
Re:Try this on for size... (Score:2)
Plaintiff: Internet Explorer 6 is available as a free download. ICQ is advertised as free software on the official Web site. Is the court saying that anyone who downloads them may then alter, reverse-engineer, sell and otherwise use and distribute them without any restrictions?
Re:Try this on for size... (Score:2)
Yup. I caught one of our developers trying to sneak GPL code into our (closed source) commercial product. He claimed that it was OK because it was "free". Honestly.
Also, we're just about to ship with a pile of uncredited Mozilla licensed stuff in there. I've told legal and I've told my boss that this is theft. I await their response.
Based on this, think "free" software is probably used uncredited and unlicensed all over the place, both through ignorance and through obstinance.
I didn't mean it as an "out of context excerpt" (Score:2)
I obviously didn't mean that the excerpt was from the GPL. I meant that a page written by the author, linking to the software, said that. It could be a permission in itself, and then there would be plenty of room to argue over the exact permissions given.
The important question isn't the author's intention, but what is a reasonable person's interpretation of the author's words. If the reasonable interpretation at the offer of download is "Do whatever you want with this." not, "You are only offered one copy of this software to be installed and run unaltered on one computer, other permissions are offered under the terms of the GPL." then that's the permission that's been given, regardless of any text files distributed with the software. And it doesn't matter what other terms it is offered under in other places, if the author ever gives blanket permission for any use to everyone, he can't take it back and sue people who took him at his word.
I'm not saying that it's a simple case that all GPL software would be found to be basically in the public domain in any court case. I'm saying that it's not a simple matter, that there are a thousand possible weaknesses in GPL'd software, this is just one example.
As for the examples of MS downloadables in other replies, they are never referred to by the copyright-holder as "free software," though they might say "free download" or "free upgrade." The source code isn't given, and generally they are very careful about stating which license terms apply when they offer a download. The typical free software author is hardly that careful.
Even so, I think it's very debatable whether EULAs are legally binding, and it has to be argued largely on a case-by-case basis.
Re:"accepting the license" (Score:2)
Reread what he said. He very clearly stated that:
You have completely misread Eben's argument. It is Copyright law that applies, not the license. The License is just something which allows you to comply with the law.
This only reinforces... (Score:5, Interesting)
Knowledge doesn't want to be free -- knowledge has no desires of any kind. It is certain people who want knowledge to be free. I'm one of those people; where I differ from the GPL is in my definition of "freedom".
Freedom is a lack of obligation; the GPL does not define "freedom", it forces obligations on people, and uses the very Copyright they despise as a tool for control. Mod me down if you will, but I have just as much right to my opinion as they do to theirs.
I have respect for Mr. Stallman's goals, but not his tactics. He and I share many beliefs when it comes to freedom -- on the issue of GPL, though, I beg to differ.
In many ways, GPL's adherents remind me of an obnoxious slogan I once saw on a hat: "If you love something, set it free; if it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it." Sorry, RMS, I just don't hold with that kind of thinking.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you want people to be able to modify and redistribute your code, but don't want someone to use it as a basis for a proprietary product, then the GPL is quite useful.
-Karl
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
Public Domain, contrary to popular belief, is not a copyright, not a license, not a anything. It is basically saying that "This code no longer belongs to me. I am relinquishing all rights to call it my own. It now belongs to the public".
So I could take any public domain software and call it my own without modifying it. Because public domain is the "giving up any rights to the work".
Basically what I want in a license is credit where credit is due. I want the world to know that I wrote my code, but at the same time alow them to use it for whatever the hell they want. So basically my thinking is "Since I don't make money off the code I write on my spare time I don't care if anyone else makes money off of it. But I at least want credit for doing the work".
So the public domain is not a good idea for a "licence". That's why most public domain software is generally just an implementation of a popular algorithm, or a proof of concept etc.
--
Garett
Ever heard of fraud? Plagiarism? Impersonation? (Score:2)
No, public domain is "giving up copyright on the work." The fact of who is the author remains, so any rights which derive solely from that fact remain.
Do you really think that you could take Alice In Wonderland and put your name on it as the author? It's in the public domain, so why not?
Because it would be fraud against those you distributed the books to. In such a business fraud, everyone that's hurt gets to sue you. You're impersonating the author, and that's going to have consequences.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
So I could take any public domain software and call it my own without modifying it. Because public domain is the "giving up any rights to the work".
Basically what I want in a license is credit where credit is due. I want the world to know that I wrote my code, but at the same time alow them to use it for whatever the hell they want. So basically my thinking is "Since I don't make money off the code I write on my spare time I don't care if anyone else makes money off of it. But I at least want credit for doing the work".
Aha! So you want people to use it for 'whatever the hell they want' except that they can't claim credit for code you wrote.
Aside from technicalities, how is that different from allowing people to use it for 'whatever the hell they want' except that they can't take the code, improve it, redistribute it and refuse to share their improvements.
Neither of these seems inherently more morally defensible than the other. If you really want people to do whatever they want full stop then put it in the public domain and be done with it; but don't get all high and mighty because you only want fame, while I want to grow an open source community. I happen to prefer my values over yours.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
I beg to differ (Score:2, Insightful)
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote. Stallman does not control my software any more than the next guy. If Stallman goes crazy and decides to destroy all software in the world, even he can't do it. He is also obliged to the GPL and does not own copyright on any code except his own.
In the Gates world, all software copyrights are assigned to a single company (which owns all developers) and that company can decide what to do with it's developers' code.
I, for one, don't want to see some commerical company using my software to make the next version of windows. That's why I release all my code under the GPL. I hope you will as well.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Except that it is not true. If you are talking about an application, you would be correct. But if you are talking about a library, then you are in error. If the library is released under the GPL, then you may not *use* that library except to link to other GPLd code. This is why the LGPL is much, much better for libraries.
Go use the GPL for any application you wish, and I won't have any problems with it. But when it comes to libraries then use the LGPL, or dual GPL/QPL, or dual MPL/GPL, or BSD, or at the very minimum use the GPL with an linking exception.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
If the library is released under the GPL, then you may not *use* that library except to link to other GPLd code.
You can *use* the library all you want, you just can't create a derivitive work of the library.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
The FSF does not determine copyright law. If your program is not already a derivitive work, then linking to a library does not make it one. On the other hand, if your program requires a specific library to work, then it would probably be considered a derivitive work of that library. Either way you still are under no obligation to release source code, you only have to release source code if you distribute the work without creating a derivitive work.
RMS can say whatever he wants, but the mere act of linking to a library dynamically is not covered under copyright law. To be honest, I think the FSF would agree on that point.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what copyright law says, it matters what the FSF says, because they're the ones everyone believes. It's small consolation if a court affirms your right to distribute your own 100% original code if you just spent several million dollars defending that right against Borland just because you used the "open" version of Kylix to write a MPL licensed application.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
If I release a program that can be linked to any library, that is fine. Now if you decide to link it to an LGPLed (or even GPLed) library, it doesn't change that MY program isn't infringing.
The FSF says (roughly) that a program is allowed to use any widely published API, without regard for being a derivating work, because other implementations of that library are possible (and likely). It's only when you link to a library which isn't standard, such that your code won't link to anything else.
They have a bit of a discussion about it on the site. Basically though, I think it's how an unbiased judge would rule. If your work NEEDS mine to function, then it's derivative. If it can use mine, or someone else's, then it's probably not derivative of either. (The abstraction required to make it work with either makes it general enough.)
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Every library that exists originally had only one implementation, so does the program magically change when someone reimplements it? I don't think so.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
It's the difference between a public and private interface.
Go read the FSFs ideas on it, if you don't like my very short interpretation.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
If I write a program that uses library X which is GPLed, the later creation of library Y doesn't mean my program isn't infringing, because when I wrote it, X is all there was... right?
The idea is that if an API is developed and documented, it can be assumed that it is intended to be used an a library, to which things are allowed to link. Any program can use that API because you can't copyright an API. The fact that only one library happens to support that API now is irrelevant.
However, if the API weren't documented, the only way to link with that library would be to write your program to what you see in the source code, which would make it a derivative work.
Or, that's the theory at least.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Now, few people would want to use an undocumented graphics API, but if you consider a standard program, it could be thought of as having a trivial API, one entry function called 'main'... If you could link to this, you could use anyone's GPLed code, and merely call it a library.
So if it looks like a library, you can use it as such. If it doesn't, you can't. Thus one of the 'technicalities' that could have been used to avoid the GPL is moot.
I just don't get it. (Score:2)
Freedom is a lack of obligation;
That's an interesting definition of freedom. I think of freedom as being more about maximizing the quantity and quality of options available to individuals. The GPL *is* about freedom- what you refuse to see is that it's not just about *your* freedom to be a dick and take someone's free software proprietary, but everyone's freedom to build on other people's accumulated knowledge.
the GPL does not define "freedom", it forces obligations on people, and uses the very Copyright they despise as a tool for control.
This is a rather infantile interpretation of the goals of the GPL. Two points here: 1. in a world without copyright the GPL would be meaningless, so it's consistent to use the copyright system against itself and at the same time clamor for its abolition (incidentally you imply here that all GPLsters believe in the abolition of copyright aaaaand... that's a canard), and secondly, the GPL doesn't use copyright to control information, but to be sure that everyone can use it in any way that doesn't keep others from using it.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
Come on dude, what is this, a Craig Mundie press release? How does Stallman become your "master"? Gates will embrace you then add proprietary extensions to your software so that you become incompatible and must upgrade whether you like it or not and by the way, copy his software and go to jail or at least pay ridiculous BSA fines. Stallman makes sure you have source to all your software and you can modify it for any purpose, and only asks one little thing in return: that you not be a dick and take free information and make it proprietary.
To sum up, only a very selfish person would not see that the GPL creates freedom for everyone by taking away your right to take other people's freedoms away. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose, and there's a good reason for that.
Bryguy
Is it simply not worth it? (Score:2)
bryguy
Blackmail? Is that you Craig Mundie? (Score:2)
Blackmail is when you tell someone you're going to reveal something embarassing about them if they don't pay you. Capitalism is when people don't use a product if it does not meet their needs. Now which one do you think the fsf engaged in again?
Bryguy
Re:Blackmail? Is that you Craig Mundie? (Score:2)
I think maybe what you're groping for is that the fsf didn't like what KDE was doing and tried to persuade them to change. They did so by referring to their standard for the freedom of software and identifying the ways in which Qt and KDE were not up to snuff. Product comparison != blackmail, I'm quite sure of it. This is getting dull, Craig.
Bryguy
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not really true. You can retain the copyright in your name (or your company's name, or your group's name). By using the GPL/LGPL you are not inherently giving over control to RMS (or even the FSF)... plus, as was mentionned elsewhere [linuxprogramming.com], by removing the words ""any
later version" from the GPL on your code, you can further ensure that changes to the GPL/LGPL in the future do not affect your software (unless you want them to).
But what it really comes down to when choosing a license (and this was the thrust of your post) is your own personal definitions of "freedom" and what you want allowed (or disallowed) with respect to your code.
Many people who use the GPL, and may or may not agree with RMS (such as myself), do not want derivative works to be placed under licenses which cause the work to become property of another entity. People using other licenses, may or may not have strong convictions about this.
For example, one thing that many people don't realize is that the networking code in Windows (I think it was just NT at one point, but now may be in all Windows variants) is actually based upon BSD networking code. The BSD licenses in place allowed Microsoft to legally do this. Some people may not have much of a problem with something like this, but those that typically use the GPL do so to prevent this sort of thing.
Personally, while I use the GPL/LGPL for all my projects, I am not about to try and force others to do the same. Part of my definition of freedom is "freedom of choice". And for any project you personally start or are responsable for, you are (and should be) free to choose whatever license you like.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
I'll admit the duality of using restrictions to give freedoms seems paradoxical ... BUT, the GPL gives you more rights then an EULA i've ever seen.
If you don't like it, use the BSD lic ... M$ will love you for it.
It sounds to me like you want the "freedom" to use GPL'd material without the "obligation" of releasing your own source ...
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
Does that mean you'll stop using your "libpng/zlib-style agreement" if RMS starts using it. That point is simply non-sense.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
You can agree or disagree with RMS. However, there's a big difference here: On any piece of GPL'd code (unless is copyrighted by the FSF, but most is not) I have as much rights as RMS. I can't say that about Bill (what's my right on Windows? None).
At last, as many have pointed out. GPL means "I help you it you do the same to others" ie. "if you want my code, let others do the same with what you derive from my code". In most cases that's fair.
As for people saying GPL is bad for buisnesses, BSD is good. Well, it's not even always true. Just look at Qt. Troll Tech can make money with Qt even though it's GPL'd. If Qt were BSD, Troll couldn't sell any Qt license (there's also FFTW that's like that and probably others). What it comes down to is: GPL is better that BSR for companies that originally wrote the code, while BSD is better for companies that want to grab the code written by others. In most cases, I'd choose the first one.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
BSD licensing and all of its work-alikes are fine as long as you want to consciously make a gift of your code rather than exchange in sharing. But so many folks seem to just hear "GPL is bad" messages like yours without getting to the "GPL's there to protect your own goals" part.
Bruce
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
Knowledge _does_ want to be free (Score:2)
Knowledge doesn't want to be free -- knowledge has no desires of any kind.
Stop being so literal. If I said "Water wants to run downhill," would you complain that water doesn't have any desires? It's a quotable way of summarizing a more complex situation.
If it bothers you so much, change "wants" to the more accurate "tends." "Water tends to run downhill," and "Knowledge tends to be free." And since free is a potentially confusing word, perhaps a further tweak, "Knowledge tends to spread out of control." (Not a perfect tweak, but I don't see an improvement right now.)
No one will contest that water tends to run downhill (I hope). Knowledge certainly spreads out of control. If I share with you a secret, say my recipe for cookies, I'd be hard pressed to stop you from sharing that knowledge further. If you've got a good memory, I can't take it away from you, and you are physically able to reproduce it and share it at will. As a race, we've continuously worked to make it easier to share knowledge. Writing. Printing. Photocopying. Faxing. Web pages. Email.
Sure, we've passed laws on copyright and trade secrets to try and restrict the flow of information. But in the absence of such laws I can't really stop you (short of physically detaining you) from spreading knowledge I've given you. Even with the laws, it's quite easy for someone willing to make an unauthorized copy to do so.
We're tried technical measures. Macrovision, copy protections. But ultimately you show the movie, book, or music to a person. A person with a video camera can reproduce the work. For text a person with a pad of paper and a pencil can slowly copy it down. All it takes is one person to acquire a non-technically restricted copy before the it can be widely and easy copied using modern technology.
People like to spread knowledge. It's hard wired into humanity. Knowledge wants to be free because people want to spread it.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
Freedom is a lack of obligation; the GPL does not define "freedom", it forces obligations on people, and uses the very Copyright they despise as a tool for control.
The GPL gives you everything that copyright does and more. If you're willing to yield copyright fundamentally restricts freedom, then yes, the GPL also restricts freedom.
The GPL doesn't "force" any obligations. If you don't redistribute the resulting software, you have no obligations. Is this less than completely free? Sure, but copyright normally doesn't allow you to redistribute it at all.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:2)
1) A lot of your post seems to be just flaming the GPL, with arguments we've heard before. I might even agree with some of them. Congratulations on starting another flame fest.
2) I am interested in one thing you do say,
(This only reinforces)...my decision to stop using the GPL for any of my own code; I've relicensed everything under a libpng/zlib-style agreement, thus distancing myself from the extreme opinions of GPL's adherents.
So, how does it reinforce your decision? Does his spelling and grammar make you cringe? Are you criticizing some bit of his legal strategy? Or are you just upset at him for enforcing the GPL?
Pure FUD (Score:2)
Re:The way I look at it... (Score:2)
No. Code released under BSD license will always be free. If someone takes that code and makes proprietary software from it then the only thing that's not free is the difference, since anyone could always go back and get the original BSD code freely.
Re:The way I look at it... (Score:2)
What I'm saying is that much of the rhetoric coming from the GPL camp is just so much pathos. I would respect the arguments of many GPL proponents much more if they were simply a little more intellectually honest.
To say that information that I have released openly to the public can be commandeered by somebody else and somehow no longer be open is blatently dishonest. It's a lie. What I've released to the public will always be available to the public. I've yet to hear a single GPL proponent admit that this is, in fact, true, or else argue cogently against it.
Instead, every time I or someone else points this out, one or more people, just like you, respond by changing the subject.
Re:This only reinforces... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just put it in the public domain
Self defense. Placing something in the public domain doesn't give you any disclaimer of liability.
GPL is based on copyright law (Score:2)
Under copyright law, only the copyright holder may create derivitive works. By publishing under the GPL, the copyright holder conditionally relinquishes this exclusive right, under the restriction that any derivitive work must also be released under the GPL. If you don't abide by this restriction, you don't have permission to release the derivitive work. The GPL may be a more socially responsible and less restrictive application of copyright law than a traditional EULA, but both derive their authority from the same source.
Keeping this in mind, is it really that suprising that the mechanism for enforcing the GPL compliance is very similar to the process used to enforce more restrictive EULA's? Any legal processes can be used for good or evil: the court that issued the Miranda ruling is the same court that came out with Dred Scot decision. Regardless of the application or the outcome, the process of applying the law is the same.
Re:GPL is based on copyright law (Score:2)
Re:GPL is based on copyright law (Score:2)
In a rational world, loading a program into memory (or any other incedental copy, such as installing it on a hard drive) should be considered fair use. However, the law is not rational. One stupid decision by one bonehead judge can set a precedent that can take many years to overturn.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mod this comment up!!!! (Score:2)
This is a really important question. Were these problems with evidence, problems with fair use exceptions (not really a GPL violation), or problems with jurisdiction?
Perhaps the circumstances indicated that the damages would have been trivial, and hence the prosecution would be pointless, but again, in that case surely the license violation would not have been so problematic?
Actually, if the copyright holders were not willing to co-operate, then the license would not have been enforceable- for example, if the author was deceased and their estate was not willing to become involved.
Enough wild speculation :). I can't really think of any sensible reason which might have made prosecution impossible.
Heck, I thought he meant... (Score:2)
The Boy Scouts of America; man, they're nasty when they want to be...
EULA problem... (Score:2)
From a technical perspective, you can't just do an "ungcc badprogram; diff badprogram.c goodprogram.c", and from a legal perspective, even if you could would this information be admissable in court as it was obtained in violation of the EULA?
This has to be done, people. (Score:2)
hypothetical situation:
Company X downloads GPL'd code Y which would be really useful as part of the new commercial product they're writing. Company X uses code Y and locks it into the binary of the program and breaks the GPL, releasing it as closed source payware and not giving any credit either. Hacker Z suspects his GPL'd code was used in the software but can do nothing because company X can use the DMCA to stop anyone from reverse engineering the program.
With this is mind, the only way it seems possible to stop someone from stealing GPL'd code is to watch them AS they write code that may contain it.
Comments, suggestions?
-Kasreyn
Mutual Assured Destruction (Score:2)
Hacker Z doesn't have to tell anybody that he reverse engineered anything until he talks to his lawyer. His lawyer can then hopefully negotiate the legal thickets. Company X will look like they're taking candy from little kids regardless.
If the purpose of reverse engineering is copyright enforcement then reverse engineer away. It may even be settled immediately. I think a case like that would be more of a weapon against the DMCA itself then against Hacker Z. That would be as good a way any to invalidate at least part of the DMCA.
Re:This has to be done, people. (Score:2)
Not hypothetical at all: it very nearly just happened here. Company X's Employee A tried to use GPL code because it was "free" (I kid you not), and tried to keep it in even after being caught by Employee B and having the GPL explained to him in very short words. Employee B had to point out that this was theft, and that if it got back to Hacker Z, then Company X would fry Employee A on the spot. Employee B had to make it very clear that he considered that he would have a moral duty to inform Hacker Z of the theft before Employee A eventually relented.
I agree though, if we'd shipped this (in an embedded product) there's no way that the auther would ever have found out. I guess we just have to rely on there being an Employee B at every company.
As an aside, we're just about to ship with uncredited Mozilla code. I've told my boss and Legal that this is theft. I really hope that they don't force me to find out if I've actually got the balls to see my own company burn.
A more friendly GPL (Score:2)
Let's face it, by giving companies a difficult time where the GPL is concerned, we are stiffening the arguments against "free software" that are currently preventing companies from using it.
Re:A more friendly GPL (Score:2)
Re:(l)GPL enforcement (Score:2)
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:2)
I think most people miss the point of the GPL, and that is to ensure that the source remains open, and that the program's life continues beyond someone's grubby paws.
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you think that? Even if someone creates a proprietary program from BSD code, the original BSD code is still available. I'm not advocating either license here, just pointing out that's not necessarily an advantage of the GPL.
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:2, Interesting)
If using it didn't benefit their aims then they wouldn't be using it.
The person who makes those improvements should have the right to make money off those changes.
Why should they? Or why should a third person not then have the right to make money by changing their code?
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny that you say that, because large corporations with large teams of lawyers tend to disagree with that statement.
Open Source/Free Software is used at the user's own risk.
And so is a lot of commercial software, apparently...
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Standard response: "it's not free if someone can take it and make it unfree".
The trouble with that standard response is that information has a special property in that you can reproduce it with absolutely no change to the original. Thus, no one can "take" the orignal. No matter how hard they try, they end up with a mere copy. Nothing anyone can do can damage the original or in any way reduce the freedom of the users of the original. If you have made a copy of my software, you copy does not belong to me. It is yours. For me to tell you what you can do with your own property is unfree in the extreme.
If someone uses a copy of my software, then licenses it in an unfree manner, it is not *my* software that is unfree. It is theirs. They cannot take any rights or permissions away from my users. They cannot alter one byte on the software or licenses in my users' possession.
Could someone out there, somewhere, end up using a derivative of my software that is not free? Of course! But that's absolutely NONE of my business. I will have no part in telling someone what they can or cannot do with software I claim to be free.
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:2)
Re:Give me freedom.. (Score:2)
In the example (Kerberos), Microsoft took an existing protocol, extended it, then released a new implementation as a proprietary service. A GPL'd Kerberos would not have prevented this.
Microsoft could have reimplemented a GPL Kerberos and still released it, because the GPL does not cover protocols. And the result would have been the same. When you find an Open Source license that prevents "embrace and extend", let me know and we can discuss that particular license. But for right now there are zero Open Source / Free Software licenses that do.
Re:How would you attack the GPL in court? (Score:2)
It seems to me that the only feasible attacks concern interpretation. The FSF says that the GPL does not permit action X, some lawyer says that the GPL does permit action X. So someone might try to come up with a clever scheme to use GPLed software in a proprietary program by some trick, and get a judge to bless it, thereby creating a loophole in the GPL.
It is because the FSF fears this kind of thing that they are prepared to issue GPL version 3, to fix any technicalities that lawyers try to turn into loopholes. That's why the preferred license is "GPL version 2 or any later version" and not "GPL version 2" -- it allows GPL version 3 code to link with older GPLed code. To bad Linus had a paranoia attack and rejected this (he pushed for dropping "or any later version" because he got paranoid about what RMS might do).
The FSF's interpretation does matter ,,, (Score:2)
Not correct: if the FSF is copyright holder, and tells you "We believe that the GPL permits XYZ" then XYZ is permitted, even if a judge's reading of the GPL comes out different. This is because the copyright holder is free to grant extra permissions.
Further, if the FSF says "We believe XYZ is not permitted and we'll fight you in court", you'd better either give in, try to convince them otherwise, or pay $$$ to hire lawyers.
Re:Applauding the FSF (Score:2, Insightful)
Many times people hear RMS's (sometimes
On RMS- the simple fact of the matter (the one thing that everyone always fails to realize when criticizing RMS) is that he is undoubtedly a brilliant person. He is very bright. The trouble with people who are "very bright" is that they can have a hard time dealing with people. This can prove especially troublesome when they have strong personal convictions (such as RMS has
While he has done some things I personally feel are horrible (such as this [linuxprogramming.com] and this exchange [linuxgames.com]) and very detrimental(sp?) to the FSF... I have respect for him and the strength of his convictions. Unlike a lot of people (hrm... many
Legal != Just (Score:2)
They aren't perfect, but who is?
I've run into this (Score:4, Insightful)
1) installing modified GPL code on a machine for a customer to evaluate -- RMS has told me that if the customer controls the machine, it is distribution, but if the code modifier controls the machine, it is not.
We ran into this when installing a system for a customer for acceptance testing.
2) Distributing binaries ahead of source (i.e. to subcontractors). RMS has made it clear to me that this is verboten. He sympathized with our plight, but could find no way that the GPL would permit this. OTOH, in practical terms, as long a source was distributed as rapidly as possible, we would likely not face allegations of violation.
We ran into this when sending "the latest, greatest build of code" to subcontractors, or potential customers for evaluation on machines we do not control. Sometimes we'd want to ship an installation CD, or download updates to someone as part of work in progress. This is a technical violation.
3) redistribution within an organization. This is a real grey area -- is the organization in control of the code or the individuals who have access to it? Personally, I have taken the former approach, but have never refused to give mods to GPL code to coworkers, when asked.
Re:I've run into this (Score:2)
For my e-company, I have made some mods to MySQL to provide some other features I need. I then install this modded version for my team of programmers to work with. Is it distribution?? What if they want a copy for their home machine so they can work from home? Is it distribution then?
Furthermore, If I consider these mods to MySQL as a buisness asset, and did not want them re-distributed, could I enforce this in the building?? Company is code modifier, machine is owned (controlled) by the company. If one of my programmers takes a copy home (without my knowledge) does it become distribution??
Assumng a court case based on the last scenario, I have my own mods for use in my buisness, employee takes a copy of the mods without permission. But wait, he does have permission.... The GPL has provided it. Or has it?? And I am now "distributing" said software.
Think it over...
~Hammy
Re:I've run into this (Score:2)
Again, what's the problem? If the subcontractors ask, you give them the url for the sources, or just burn them onto a CD or two and drop them into the mail. If you can modify, this must be possible.
Perhaps the problem is that you want to keep secrets? That's perfectly respectable, but that's not what this license is all about.
Quite seriously, the GPL does impose some serious burdens on distributors. Fortunately, these can all be overcome by distributing only in source code form. Configure and make are slick enough that this is entirely practical for me, and I'm certainly no programmer. I can't set this stuff up myself, but I have no trouble using it to install big projects like R [r-project.org] .
Re:GPL vs. LGPL (Score:2)
Nope, X has another option: ask Z for a license to his code that isn't the GPL. He can say yes or no. Simple, easy, probably takes one phone call to get the answer. The whole point of the GPL is to prevent a company from doing what you want in your last paragraph without going back to the original author for permission. Why should the GPL be modified, then? If the author didn't want what the GPL did, he wouldn't have used the GPL.
And this changes things how? (Score:2)
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
No, you don't have to agree. But you still won't have permission to execute a non-GPL application that dynamically links to a GPL library. Doing so is not in violation of any copyright laws, but it is in violation of the GPL.
This is the one area of the GPL that regulates the usage of the software. The only reason you can run non-GPL applications under Linux, is that Linus had the foresight to include an exception to the GPL in the kernel license.
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
Well, he's explaining his interpretation of the GPL. My, err, interpretation of his little clause is that he's saying "even if the GPL says you have to, I say you don't".. which I don't think implies that "the GPL says you have to". One thing he didn't make explicit that he probably should have was his interpretation for binary-only kernel modules.
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
But there are several libraries out there released under the GPL and not the LGPL. The most recent one I discovered was the Kylix runtime libraries. I may not use the "open" version of Kylix to create any BSD, MIT, MPL or AL licensed applications. The sad irony with Kylix is that if I want to distribute my own 100% original BSDL code developed with Kylix, I must purchase the unfree and closed version of Kylix, because the free and open version won't let me.
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
They're under no obligation to make it free to you.
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
I know of no single closed source or proprietary library that has the cojones to tell me what I can do with my own original non-derivative source code. There may be some, I just don't know of any. The proprietary licenses may dump a shitload of restrictions preventing me from distributing the library, but nothing prevents me from distributing my own work.
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
Example: Mr. Lucas, I only used the Millenium Falcon in one battle scene and it was on the edge of the screen....
Copyright law does not give you the right to redistribute ANY significant portion of someone else's work. If you can't claim "Fair Use" and prove it, you are violating copyright.
Re:Important difference (Score:2)
That's what you, I, and common sense believe. But it's not what the FSF believes.se".
Re:Important difference (Score:2)