GPL's Strength 323
Morty writes "So, why hasn't the GPL been successfully
challenged yet? In this article, Eben Moglen, General Counsel to the FSF, explains that the GPL is in a stronger legal position than most licenses. Most licenses restrict the user from doing what would otherwise be legal. Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software), the GPL is in a stronger position to dictate terms. If the user doesn't accept the terms of the GPL, the default is for copying and redistribution to be forbidden under copyright law. I had never looked at it that way before. . ."
Unlicenced software (Score:3, Funny)
Oh no! The BSA is gonna discover all this *unlicensed* GPL-ware! I'd better get a-patchin' and a-redistributin', the Kopyright Kops are komin'...
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:4, Funny)
Heh. I wonder if the FSF could become a member of the BSA?
Not that they'd ever participate in such an thing, but wouldn't it be funny if the BSA raided MS to make sure they weren't abusing the GPL?
Hmmm... Unlike the MS EULAs the GPL probably doesn't allow for intrusive audits. Oh well.
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
I guess the lure of getting one more word in is just too much to bear...
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
I doubt very much that RMS would want to be associated with the BSA in any way.
This is, after all, a man who prefers to describe piracy as "sharing information with neighbor". [fsf.org]
Even if RMS did want the FSF in the BSA, the BSA almost certainly would find some reason to reject him, based on the above view.
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
So, who or what outfit would you suggest??
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
LSD did not come out of Berkeley. It was invented at the Sandoz corporation while looking for drugs to induce a pregnant woman to give birth.
Re:Unlicenced software (Score:2)
The following article (Score:5, Informative)
Great Quote.... (Score:2)
``Look,'' I say, ``at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?''
Heh heh heh...
Re:Great Quote.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Either that or nobody wants to spend the money it will take to challenge it. My guess is that what is going to happen is that someone will not back down to the demands of the FSF when they are found out of compliance with the GPL. At that point, it will be up to the FSF to prove it is valid rather than someone actually challenging it.
But, really, is there any reason this guy wouldn't say that it is strong? It amazes me that proponents of a certain issue always publish these "epiphanies" of how their issue is strong, sound, and the good cause. In any other forum, the conclusions published as such would be viewed with a lot of skepticism.
Re:Great Quote.... (Score:4, Insightful)
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. 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 for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Re:Great Quote.... (Score:2)
Even without this statement appearing in the license
NOTHING grants you the right to copy, distribute or modify a copyrighted work, other than a license, outside of fair use, which only applies to the right to make backup copies (of software only), or to timeshift, etc. If it weren't for the GPL, as stated in the article, you couldn't copy or modify a GPLed program. Period. That's what copyright law IS.
Re:Great Quote.... (Score:2)
Re:Great Quote.... (Score:2)
This is technically referred to as the right to make derivative works. Modifying the source code to a copyrighted program that does not specifically license the right to create derivative works, but not distributing the changes is more or less a gray area...for instance, what constitutes distribution?
Well, you could say as long as I, working as an agent for my company, modify it and then don't distribute the changes outside my company, that's allowed. But what constitutes 'my company' or 'my organization'? Say I work for General Motors. Can I distribute the work to my wholly-owned subsidiary, GMAC (GM's finance and mortgage company)? What about Hughes Satellite (of DirectTV, DirectPC, OnStar, etc. fame), which is also wholly-owned by GM? What if I allege the entire world is a member of my organization?
There's some gray area as to what falls into 'fair use' exemption and what doesn't. Personal use is definitely fair use, but beyond that it's a gray area until you get into out-and-out distribution of the work.
EULAs and you (Score:2, Funny)
Re:EULAs and you (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the day M$ includes a clause in the EULA that says anything written with it's office suite is the sole property of M$
Microsoft was beaten to the punch on this. Apple's first shared-source license, which accompanied the release of the first OS X, had a provision (I'm not sure if it still has it) that dictated that any changes made to the source for Darwin became the property of Apple. In order to get the source for Darwin, you were made to agree to that particular license. Also, when Apple came out with virtual "I-Disk" for the Imac, which was basically a storage space on Apple's servers for stuff you had on your Imac, anything that a user would place there would automatically fall into the realm of Apple's intellectual property. They could use stuff you created and stored on that disk for anything they wanted without having to compensate you. I'm pretty sure this is no longer the case either.
I think the "assimilation" part of the shared-source license had been changed, because I do remember Apple getting significant flack for this. I believe now you just have to make any changes you make to Darwin "public" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Re:EULAs and you (Score:2)
Back in the 80's and early 90's, I worked for a couple of companies whose lawyers advised against building products on Sys/V unix, on the grounds that
their reading of the ATT license implied that any program compiled with the ATT compiler and linked to the Sys/V libraries (yes, including libc.a) would become the property of ATT.
This seems to have been the way a lot of lawyers interpreted the Sys/V licence, and it is widely believed to be one of the things that killed off Sys/V.
Considering that linux is in effect a reimplementation of Sys/V (i.e., POSIX), this seems quite believable. This shows that it wasn't Sys/V itself that developers found objectionable.
This could well be a real case of a company shooting its own product in the foot by trying to sneak in an "everything you develop on our system belongs to us" license.
Maybe Microsoft will kill its own systems off the same way. I know a number of developers of quality sound software who don't want to sell in the Microsoft market. Their argument is that if they sell directly to customers, Real Player kills their product and users have to keep reinstalling it. The only way to get off Real Player's hit list is to sign a Microsoft license, and that essentially hands over the rights to your software to Microsoft.
A couple years ago I worked for a company that built firewall and other security software. While I was there, they pulled the NT version of their software, and announced that future releases would only be on unix/linux systems. Their management gave numerous reasons. Primary was the inherent unreliability of a system with hidden "black box" internals whose behaviour they couldn't know or promise. And part of their reason was the very real danger that Microsoft would require integration with NT as the price for getting access to internals, giving Microsoft effective ownership of the code.
With enough of this sort of thing, Microsoft may wake up one day and find that nobody is willing to develop any more software on their systems.
Wasn't there a report along this line just last week?
Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, the GPL gives you something (the right to copy, change, etc.) in exchange for something (play by their rules)... so even if it comes in a box you purchased you're still being given something.
Although, if you decide you won't use any of the additional rights the GPL grants, are you still bound by it if you, say, bought a RedHat package full of GNU software? You're paying to use it, right?
The above is a synopsis of an excellent discussion in Brown Eye Journal [216.239.39.101]... be forewarned, it's a painful read.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems to be established ground that user agreements like EULA is legitimate in contractual terms. The whole idea is that if you don't accept the user agreement, you're supposde to return the software back to the shop (ha).
So, the consideration is clearly the purchase price, and the agreement (ie licence) the quid pro quo for your purchase price.
Sounds like a really dodgy argument to me.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2)
So, the consideration is clearly the purchase price, and the agreement (ie licence) the quid pro quo for your purchase price.
Did you pay Microsoft for your copy of Windows, or did you pay someone else? If you paid Microsoft, maybe you can use this argument, but if you paid someone else, then any "contract" is between you and them. Microsoft has no right to sue you for breaching a contract between the two of you.
Of course this is one particular problem with GPLed software. If someone makes GPLed software, and a company then takes that GPLed software and makes modifications, then a third party modifies that software, the company could still sue the third party for copyright infringement, and there's nothing the third party can do about it, without help from the original author.
It makes for an interesting case for places like slashdot. This web page you're reading is clearly a derivitive work of slashcode, and slashcode is clearly GPLed, but could slashdot sue someone for copying it? It's unclear. But now I've digressed into my GPL rant...
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2)
This isn't relevent anyway, since the GPL is not an EULA.
It is a copyright licence.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2)
The general idea is something like this: it is possible to impose "licensing" terms on services, and EULAs are likely to be enforceable in these cases. Contracts, on the other hand, have to be agreed before money exchanges hands; this means the EULAs are not valid contracts. The question, then, is whether software accompanied by a EULA is a service or a product.
In a recent California case, certain software was declared to be a product. Had the software been "rented" instead of sold, it *might* have been considered a service. This meant that the terms of the EULA were not enforceable. In particular, I think they were not enforced on a company that had never agreed to the EULA anyway, and was simply redistributing the product in a manner different than Adobe corporation wanted them to.
-Paul Komarek
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with paying to use it. You cannot distribute copies of a copyrighted work.
So if you're challenged in court as to what made you think you could copy and redistribute the software, how do you defend yourself?
Either you say "The author permitted me to do so by granting me license under the terms of the GPL", or you say "I am a criminal"
So either all these people using these extra rights provided for under the GPL are criminals, or they've protected themselves under the terms of the GPL. They don't need to sign anything, the author has signed the agreement.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2)
Interesting point .... (Score:2)
2) The publisher tries to insert themselves into the contract with the EULA at the time you install the software. They tell you that if you don't agree with the EULA to return the product to the place you bought it for a refund. This is lame as most stores flat refuse to take back opened software - evebn if you point out that they're legally required to (because you couldn't inspect the goods in store).
3) What is the publisher giving you in exchange for accepting the EULA - nothing apparently as you already bought the software from the retailer. Granting you a right to use something you already bought the right to use is giving you nothing. Not to mention the manufacturers disclaimer of warranties makes it clear the software isnt intended to do anything anyway.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general (Score:2)
I think this would actually make the business of selling Linux more palatable for people who wonder what RedHat does that deserves money.
Interesting point (Score:3, Informative)
1) Challenge the GPL in court. If it failed, the best they could hope for is that the code would revert to existing copyright law, which means they can't use it at all, and thus would have to pull that code out of their product.
2) Bow to pressure and conform to the terms of the GPL, which is what the FSF, et al, wanted all along.
A very interesting observation, and one that gets to the heart of the "If you don't like the conditions we attach to our code, write your own" argument. Other people would not normally be able to use GPL'd code at all, under standard copyright law, but for some reason, the GPL seems to lead to more "I should be able to do whatever I want with your code" responses.
Re:Interesting point (Score:2)
I take it you mean use and redistribute outside of the company. Nothing in the GPL says you have to offer up source code if you modify but don't redistribute....A company could easily pickup GPL code and modify it for use inside the company and never have to offer up the changes for distribution.
Re:Interesting point (Score:2)
You don't, AFAICT, have to distribute your modificatioins _at all_.
If I have a limited private beta of a software package that's GPL'd, I have to give out the source with the binaries, but I don't have to do so for others.
However, the kicker is that I can't prevent those private beta people from redistributing the software themselves
Re:Interesting point (Score:2)
GPL Not legally binding = copyright violation (Score:3)
If they do not have permission they are violating the copyright.
If they are not distributing code, they are not restrained by the GPL, I doubt any court would hear a "take away their copyright because I don't like the GPL" case.
Re:Interesting point (Score:2, Informative)
The GPL is *not* the same thing as a standard software contract, largely because of the differences explained in the article that started this topic!
You have no need to accept a GPL to use the software. Nobody cares.
If you want to distribute it, you must find some way to obtain a license from the copyright holder(s). In GPLed works, that typically comes with the source, in the form of the GPL.
A traditional EULA says that "You can't use this in ways we don't like, and may not redistribute it." It restricts you in unexepected ways after you open the package - the GPL loosens those restrictions after you open the package: "If you want to distribute this, or a modified version, you must provide the source code as well."
That's the (amazingly significant) difference.
Oh, and once again, IANAL.
Re:Interesting point (Score:3)
Rights and restrictions (Score:2, Informative)
It is certainly true that most propriatary licenses take away rights and privileges one might otherwise expect in a commercial transaction. The point that the GPL grants rights forbidden in copyright law is interesting and important in this context.
If I buy a proprietary piece of software for my business, it might come with a EULA that says I have surrendered my right to second sale, or even my very basic and real rights to own property and use it as I see fit for my OWN use. The EULA might claim that I can only use software "X" in very specific ways, it may restrict me from doing things with the software such as modifying it even for my own use, let alone being able to take my modifications and benefit from the intellectual investment I made in software "X". And perhaps I may be making myself open to expensive audits. Proprietary commercial licenses can devalue my intellectual rights as a consumer, and the very integrety of my business.
Interestingly enough, while EULA's tend to interfere with what happens in privately owned software in many ways, Free Software in general, and even the GPL specifically, imposes no restrictions whatsoever with what I do with it in my own proprietary use, whether in my own home or my business.
If I wish to create or modify software for use in my own proprietary business, unlike with commercial proprietary software, I am absolutely free to do so with freely licensed software in any manner I choose. I am secure in both my first ammendment rights to talk about the software I am using and what I am doing if I wish (yes, some commercial proprietary software comes with licenses that claim to strip away such basic 1st ammendment protections) and my very basic 4th ammendment rights to be secure in my own property. In that there is no issue of software freedom in what I do with software personally, there are no terms in licenses like the GPL that either come in effect or hinder me in any way in this regard.
When the GPL does come into play is when I choose to distribute software to others, and particularly commercially. The GPL grants specific rights that permit you as a commercial entity to actually profit from the software you have invested in and then modified. The GPL only says that you must give others the same oppertunity and rights you were given.
Many commercial licenses do not permit you to profit from the software you have purchased in any manner whatsoever. They restrict what you can do with the software in other ways. They reduce the value the investment made in the software. The GPL increases the value of the investment. Prorpiatary licenses, especially when combined with software patents, can interfere with the basic right to own property and be secure in your own possessions or the ability to choose. By restricting what you do with your own property and your ability to purchase from multipe vendors commercial proprietary software is very anti-
capitolistic.
2001??? (Score:3, Insightful)
To make things even worse, people are trying to discuss something that's been chewed, re-chewed and over-chewed who knows how many times already. Once and for all - GPL is good, it protects people's work and creativity and prevents bustards from steeling ideas.
Couple of hours installing Linux on a friend's PC and/or promoting virtues of GNU/Linux/GPL/Free/Good... would be time spent in a much better way.
This was not meant as a flame or such but feel free to mod to the ground, who cares...Re:2001??? (Score:2)
The second paper was published on 9/10/2001.
Did you forget about the week the world stopped turning? First thing in the morning the day(night?) right after this was published? Did you notice this guy works in Columbia which is located in NYC?
Perhaps we all had better things to do than to submit the two article set that day. That makes it no less valid.
I agree reposting sucks, but this I believe was an exception.
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2001??? (Score:2)
Couple of hours installing Linux on a friend's PC and/or promoting virtues of GNU/Linux/GPL/Free/Good... would be time spent in a much better way.
OMG.. Words of Wisdom from the slashdotians! I have been preaching this for years and sadly most linux/OSS users are too lazy or have too many phycological problems interacting with other humans to be able to do this. I have to date converted 12 people from Win*** to Linux (RH to be exact.) and HELD THEIR HAND through the first 3 months. (actualy hand holding time is less than 5 weeks but being close to help keeps the fears at bay) There are 3 important lessons these people learn during their foray away from Microsoft....
1. you do not NEED microsoft or microsoft compatable products... everything you need is available undr linux.
2. you do not NEED to send DOC,XLS,or PPT files. sending then as RTF or even PDF (Yes I teach them how to distill to pdf) is better.
3. you cant buy cheap crap for hardware. I have had 3 of them learn this at the 4 month mark. They bought a new modem, internal, el-cheapo. it wont work, they whined that Linux cant autodetect.... bla...bla... I told them to take it back and buy ONLY high quality parts... in fact I showed them how to get a list of what works. Voila... quality hardware=works with linux.
12 people.. all of which no longer HOSE their windows machine monthly, are happy it runs faster, and now brag that they are VIRUS IMMUNE (I know they are factually wrong, but compared to microsoft they are.)
Re:2001??? (Score:2)
How do you steal an idea?
I always thought that the GPL was meant to prevent people from locking away ideas from public use.
because... (Score:2)
I mean... the GPL basically does what it's intended to do, even if there are occasional transgressions. And the copyright holders don't have much financial incentive to go to court. And the offenders find it easier to comply or otherwise settle than to fight in court.
All in all, this is a good thing.
Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It (Score:2)
Re:Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It (Score:2)
Farmers up here use the 3 S's when dealing with wolves: Shoot, shovel, and shut up. It is illegal to kill a wolf (protect species), but if you hide the evidence there is little chance you will get into trouble for it.
Likewise, I suspect there are a lot of companies that use GPL code but they don't tell anyone so nobody finds out. Accually I suspect the company has a policy of not using GPL code, but some programers are not up on legalities so they use it, remove the license, and don't tell anyone. If someone can prove it, the entire product is GPL, but it is very hard to prove. (And there is a reasonable chance the company can wiggle out by proving that it was against policy to do that, and the company made a good effort to not use gpl code. Maybe, you would have to ask a lawyer what would happen in this case.
Entire product GPLed (Score:2)
1. The GPLed portion can be replaced with non-infringing code.
2. Other consideration can be given to the original copyright holders. ie. relicensing of the affected code in exchange for money.
If by "wiggle out" you mean "get off scot-free and continue to distribute infringing code" then no that won't happen (at least not to FSF owned code.). At a minimum, they will have to put out a non-infringing mandatory upgrade since they didn't have the right to distribute the original code.
Remember, the GPL doesn't get to dictate penalties for copyright violation (although it may suggest them REALLY strongly). Either a judge does that or an accomodation is reached with the copyright holders in arbitration. Moglen is saying arbitration is their usual approach.
Re:Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It (Score:2)
I think Teradyne set the standard on this, thanks, in part, to my efforts, while there: A "good effort", means paying RMS to come and lecture your developers on the GPL, taping the lecture, and using it as a tool for new hires who will work with GPL code.
Now, that cuts both ways: the company may have an excuse if a clueless programmer messes up, but now has no excuse if the company tries to hide it.
Re:Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It (Score:2)
Not quite. If someone can prove it, then it is illegal for the company to distribute the software, especially if they licenced code from third parties who do not approve of applying the GPL to their software.
Re:Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It (Score:2)
Public Relations (Score:2)
If the GPL had a weakness... (Score:2)
Your Honour, we are violating a copyright (Score:2)
Of course they'd get off because even if the judiciary rules against MS, they don't have the means to enforce it.
A judge can make any judgement they want, however they lack the tools to really enforce it. A court order doesn't mean anything unless the government will stand behind it and make it happen.
Read the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
You've never read the GPL then.
I recommend that everyone who uses GPL software read the GPL. It's not hard. It is a legal document, but it is written in plain and simple language because the authors intended it to be understood (shock! horror!). The section in question is an absolute bloody work of genius. I quote:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
It's so beautiful, I may just cry openly.
Finally.. (Score:2)
With an actual front-page article like this one, perhaps I can stop having to make this exact point [GPL gives rights, normal EULA takes away rights] every time someone demonstrates belief in the fallacy that the GPL is "just like an EULA", or the related fallacy that "GPL restricts actual use of a product".
Oh wait. I guess that would require people to read the article, now, wouldn't it? <sigh>
Where is the BSA for the GPL? (Score:2, Interesting)
sell shares to raise funds. say, $10 a piece.
offer a bounty for whistleblowers (licensees, contractors, coders with options underwater, etc) who can demonstrate uses of GPL'd code in shipping, closed-source products.
conduct BSA-style raids on firms selling closed-source software.
since a proven violation would likely open-source the product, terminate that firm's ability to sell it further, and result in heavy fines (triple damages, plus all the ill-gotten gains) there would be a strong incentive to settle out-of-court.
the settlement funds are fed-back into the organization to offer more bounties, and pay dividends to the share holders, etc.
I realize this would never work (the community would never support it; free software has never been about taking software from others unwilling to give it) but it's fun to dream about it.
Re:Where is the BSA for the GPL? (Score:2)
free software has never been about taking software from others unwilling to give it
Well you're not really taking any software. Going after GPL violations is simply taking control of what is rightfully yours if you happened to be the person who owned and/or wrote the GPL-ed code.
I think your idea of a BSA-like organization is excellent. Such an organization could help the lone GPL coder(s) go after a huge company that is illegally using their code. Typically, most GPL work is done by individuals without the capacity to take on such companies in court and win. A BSA-like organization may be the only way for such coders to be able to enforce their rights by being able to hire the legal guns on the same par as lawyers on corporate retainer or payroll.
Part 2 (Score:2)
Classic Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Classic Slashdot? (Score:2)
Has the GPL changed since the article came out? Even though it's the internet, relevant articles may be more than three hours old. It's nice to see an article as soon as it comes out, but I'm willing to guess that most people on this site hadn't seen the article back when it was released.
So you have two choices: Read it or don't read it. If you think that the eight months of sitting on a server virtually untouched has made it stale, then by all means don't read it. I, on the other hand, read the whole article before noticing the date, and I didn't see one word of the article that isn't as true today as it was way back when it was written.
This article has survived through the ages, indeed.
The worst parts of Microsofts attack on the GPL.. (Score:3, Informative)
This makes the GPL sound way more complicated than it is.
If an organization does nothing but USE GPL-based software (installing Linux one corporate servers or desktops), they need not bother with the GPL-license at all. They can just rest assured that the GPL-license gives them some rights over most other software, if they should ever decide to modify it.
Compared to Microsofts proprietary licenses. The GPL-license is nothing but added rights. There is no drawback whatsoever with the license itself. Though Microsoft might debate that free software can never be as good as non-free software (I would disagree), or that they might not get good enough support (I still disagree).
Now. The BSD-license grants you even more rights. But that is another story.
Lawyers not so bad (Score:2)
Would copyright law apply? (Score:2)
I understand your point, but IANAL, so are you sure that the "default" would apply? Does copyright law apply to a work published in that manner? (Maybe by using the word "publish", I've answered my own question!) I'm talking about technicalities such as not including the "Copyright" message, etc.?
Re:Strong? Of Course! (Score:2, Informative)
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Re:Strong? Of Course! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking at your user history you might just be ignorant rather than trolling with this, so:
That depends on where you are, as discussed in the thread on Playstation imports.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/0
In any sane jurisdiction, using software you have already bought does not require additional permission from the copyright holder.
Being English, I'm aware that this may not be the case in the UK.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:3, Informative)
It is the case. The relevant legislation (Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988) was amended in 1995 (IIRC) to specifically cover non-infringing acts wrt software. So basically you don't need a EULA.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
This?
Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 3233
The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923
Ok, 50C says it is legal to copy or adapt a program if necessary for lawful use by a lawful user. And "a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program."
Which seems circular to me - what defines whether you have a right to use the program if not under a licence, if, by default, you aren't allowed to copy it onto your machine? (And that same set of amendments omits ", otherwise than incidentally in the course of running the program" somewhere else).
Or does that just mean if you haven't stolen the program, and aren't breaking into someone else's machine to use it?
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/morecopy
And how does thus fit into the recent declaration that you do need a licence to copy a game into a PlayStation, so can't legally read a region-protected game disc?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?
> So basically you don't need a EULA.
I'd hope so. But it doesn't seem clear-cut, which is why I said "may". Do you have any references or pointers to precedents?
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2, Informative)
>software.
One enter the shop, pay money and get the software in return. Thus one own that copy of the software, just as one own the copy of a book one owns. Perhaps in your country the laws says that when you buy software you don't own it but in most countries there is no such exception for software. Thus when you buy the copy in the shop, you own that copy.
>You do not have the right to use someone elses
>property.
And since you DID buy it in the shop, that copy of thwesoftware is now yours (just as a copy of a book is yours when you have bought it).
> If you are given the right to use someone elses
>property under certain conditions, it is illegal
>to use the property if you ignore those
>conditions.
This is actually the reverse of what applies, since I have bought the copy of the program, what happens with EULAs and such that are proposed AFTER you have bought is that the ones that sold me a copy of the software is now trying to control how *I* use something *I* own, they can't do that, they have to make such agreements BEFORE they sell me something.
>This is true whether you're talking about MS
>Office or GNU Office; the copyright owner, owns
>the product.
He owns each copy of it until it is sold. Copyright does not mean you own each copy of it (if that was the case, you would not own a single book you have at home for example). Copyright does not grant you any ownership at all. It only grant you certain rights according to the copyright laws (or rather, prevent some rights from NON copyright holders). One such rigt is the right to copy the work and distribute/sell such copies. another such right is the right to perform it in public and such. In no way does copyright grant you automatical ownership of each copy produced.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL on the other hand grants you extra rights. Once you have obtained the software you can do whatever the hell you want with it personally. On top of that you have the extra rights which you otherwise wouldn't, ie the option of distibuting the software, if you are willing to obey a few rules (ie granting the exra rights you have been given to others).
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
With the GPL "personally" also applies to a "person" such as a corporate entity. Whereas many EULA's have to jump through hoops to treat natural people and legal people differently.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, whenever you get something with a license, you have the option of not accepting the license. If you don't accept the license, then what rights do you get? Well, the logical answer seems to be that you get all the rights you normally would under copyright law and none others. And in US law these rights are all you need to install and use the software, because copyright law doesn't govern application and US copyright law exempts copies necessary for use. (UK law doesn't, though; the copy made into memory will infringe copyright if it's not licensed (this has been upheld), so EULAs AND the GPL are stronger here.) Statements saying 'if you don't accept the license you must return this software' are PART of the license and thus you can refuse to accept them too. (There is no law giving them the right to say that.)
In the case of software there is normally something that tries to stop you getting at the software without accepting the license (a click license in the installer or an 'if you open the box' rule). Some people have tried getting around this (by, for example, getting a young child to accept the license, which is meaningless as a child cannot enter into a legal agreement), but I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court.
The counter argument would be that it is the license, not the software, that is sold; since the software isn't yours the company can dictate what you can do with it. This is highly contoversial and I think is also still untested. (Amongst other things if tested it could lead to software stores being sued for trade descriptions for claiming that they are selling software. "Software Warehouse" would have to become "License Warehouse" etc...)
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that you are mistaken. This recent post [slashdot.org] (thanks again, vercingetorix) opened my eyes to the use of Licensing in Software. Basically, the case law in the US is that you have to have a license because copying the software to RAM is violating the author's copyright.
I know it seems crazy, but that's the current US law.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
I'm not sure the software companies would want these things tested in court. If the opening the box created a binding contract they'd be bankrupt within a week, since the ruling would would also give opening envelopes the same status as opening boxs...
The counter argument would be that it is the license, not the software, that is sold; since the software isn't yours the company can dictate what you can do with it. This is highly contoversial and I think is also still untested. (Amongst other things if tested it could lead to software stores being sued for trade descriptions for claiming that they are selling software. "Software Warehouse" would have to become "License Warehouse" etc...)
Another challenge would be DVDs advertised as "Yours to own (forever)"...
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
Think of the "software as a book" metaphore. You don't need a license to read a book, just as you don't need a license to use software. The author of a book does not give up copyright when they sell a million copies of a book --- you didn't agree to a license, yet you cannot photocopy a book and sell it.
As I see it, a book is more like a file that's meant to be used with a given software, instead of software itself. A more correct analogy would be a book written in some unknown language with an enclosed contract offer to give a way to decrypt the content if agreed to. Seller could then claim that they're selling the book (file) and licensing the algorithm (software) as a separate product. Whether or not they could prevent others from distributing the algorighm would depend on a given country's laws as algorithms alone cannot be patented in many countries and could therefore be distributed freely. A binary could be claimed to be a data file to be used with software called "Operating System," though.
One could claim that binary is simply encrypted version of the source code (content scrambling algorithm) and it's meant to be used with [encrypted] data files to obtain access to copyrighted content. Perhaps DMCA could be applied?
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
But beyond the technical, I still can't see how copying a program onto a drive and then into memory is any different than me reading a book, translating the printed text on the page into representative thought and then comprehending that thought into a mental image of what the author was trying to convey to me. And god forbid that I remember what I read and write it down for reference.
You've answered your own question. (Score:5, Informative)
You quoted, "let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software)". Most Open Source licenses don't regulate that activity either. The other activity that is regulated is preservation of the original copyright notice: you can't claim someone else's work as your own. The BSD, Apache, X style licenses say you can't plagiarize but can do anything else you want
You are correct, though, Microsoft's EULAs do restrict use of the software as well as copying, redistribution, reverse engineering and reselling.
The point Professor Moglen was trying to make is that in legal terms the GPL is SIMPLER than such a EULA and is therefore less prone to failure. I would imagine that is largely true of most other Open Source licenses.*
* The MPL/NPL, APSL, IBM's public license and other corporate style Open Source licenses tend to be complicated and fail the simplicity criterion.
Re:You've answered your own question. (Score:2)
Finally! Someone who understands the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement!
Kudos!
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
One very important point - Using the software is a right that is always granted, whether you choose to accept the GPL or not. So a person can still benefit from using GPLed software, but just cannot modify it and distribute if he does not accept the GPL.
This preserves the original spirit of copyright law, which is to limit only distribution of a work or its derivatives. Unlike MS and many other software companies, the FSF did not join in the software land-grab. MS and others have reinterpreted copyright to include usage terms, and this has been upheld by the courts. Why did this ever happen?
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
Except that the GPL is explicitally not an EULA. It applies only to distribution of the software to a third party.
This preserves the original spirit of copyright law, which is to limit only distribution of a work or its derivatives.
In the case of the US (where the GPL was invented), part of the point of copyright is to encourage distribution and usage.
Unlike MS and many other software companies, the FSF did not join in the software land-grab. MS and others have reinterpreted copyright to include usage terms, and this has been upheld by the courts.
Not just upheld by courts, copyright laws have been rewritten to become partly also "useright".
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:2)
And that's where the copyright holders, the software industry in particular, try to revoke your rights through EULAs by claiming you didnt 'buy' that software, you bought a license to run it, which would thereby allow them to restrict you from doing things you otherwise would have every right to do under copyright law.
If you really believe Microsoft is doing you a favor and allowing you to do something that would be illegal they've really done a good number on you. Except you're right in some places of course, where they and the other industry interests have done a good number on the lawmakers too.
There is a huge difference (Score:2)
Now the GPL is different in that it GRANTS you new right you don't normally have under the law. You can't normally modify or redistribute vopyrighted works, which includes software. The GPL allows you to do so, but puts stipulations on your doing it. This is a much stronger legal position. It says we grant you additonal rights with our IP, but only under the following conditions. If you don't find the conditions acceptable that's fine, nothing gained nothing lost.
I'll try an analogy here. I have exclusionary power over my house, as you do over yours, meaning I can decide who is and is not allowed to be here. You do not normally have the right to enter my house under the law, you need my permission to do so. Now I can set conditions on that permission, like you must remove your shoes for example. If you fail to meet those conditions, I can void the permission. I don't need a contract with you or anything. However you do normally under the law have the right to stand on the public sidewalk across from my house and observe it. I can't take that right away from you with out soem legal manuvering, almost certianly involving a contract. I can't tell you "by observing my house you agree to these conditions", as it's a right you already have under the law.
See the difference?
Re:There is a huge difference (Score:2)
However contracts operate within the "law of the land" they do not supercede it. Indeed you might well find that a specific law is required in order for a "right" to be contracted away in the first place.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille (Score:3)
Yes, it's like when you buy a book, or a CD, or anything protected by the copyright law without an explicite license, you can do certain things (like everything under the fair use term), but you can't e.g. copy and redistribute that work. When you buy a protected work, you have some rights provided by the copyright law. With most of software licenses (especially EULA's) you have less rights than under the standard copyright law, while with the GPL you have more rights than under the standard copyright law.
Re:Surely (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure the FSF people have gone over this a million times (e.g. in gnu.misc.discuss [google.com]), but here it is, again. The GPL doesn't force you to do anything. It only prohibits you from doing some things. Quoting from the article:
Just like any other software, you cannot redistribute GPL'd software except by certain license provisions. You cannot distribute derivative works of GPL'd software except by certain license provisions.
That is all. When you use Emacs, you aren't forced to do anything. When you sell (or otherwise give) Emacs to someone else, the GPL kicks in. If I download an e-book from somewhere (or buy a CD), I cannot distribute the data as I see fit -- I must follow the license under which I got it. Software is the same. GPL'd software is also no different.
Re:Surely (Score:2, Informative)
Copyright has nothing to do with ownership. What you've bought is paper, glue, etc., -- when you bought a book, say.
Someone had the right to make a copy of the information that is in the book, though. The right to copy is not the same as the right to own.
When you download GPL'd s/w, someone has given you the right to "make a copy". That right comes with several restrictions. With conventional, commercial information distribution, one typically must pay for every copy made -- often whether the copy is sold or not.
Re:Surely (Score:4, Insightful)
something you *haven't* signed can't restrict your rights in any way
Why don't you *read* the article. It demonstrates in plain simple language that your statement is absolutely wrong. You didn't sign any copyright law but it restricts your right to copy anything protected by it. The GPL just says that the copyright holder will not sue your ass if you copy their software as long as you abide by some simple conditions.
Re:Surely (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the GPL restricting your rights, it's copyright law, which is a LAW, not a contract, and thus does not need to be agreed to by signing.
The GPL says (greatly simplified - no doubt 1000 pedants will now jump on me) - "I, the author, will let you copy, and modify my software, provided you make the modified source code for any derived binary work you publish and publically distribute available to everyone.". i.e. agreeing to the GPL gives you more rights to the material, not less.
That's why MS hates the GPL - they can't "take" without "giving back". GPL = Free-as-in-speech, the Free-as-in-beer stuff isn't really true once you assign economic value to "intellectual property" - in fact, you're usually getting an incredibly good deal, being allowed use a wealth of GPL'd I.P. in return for a promise of details of modifications you may one day make to that I.P.
Think about it "I just got the source to SQL server, now MS won't let me change it a bit and resell it as my own without paying them millions of dollars". GPL software is just the same, only the price is not monetary, the price is to agree to "share and share alike".
This is the opposite of a "normal" EULA, which seeks to restrict further the rights of the end user over and above copyright law - and mostly, except in states with UCITA in America and in Ireland in Europe, EULAs are seldom legally enforceable.
You can even modify GPL software to your heart's content within an organisation, without giving the changes back to the author, so long as you don't distribute outside the organisation.
Re:Surely (Score:2)
That's exactly what is being said. Legally, you can copy software all you like. You just can't distribute those copies. You can also reverse-engineer it, you can quote from it, you can destroy all copies and sell it as "used". There are all kinds of things you can do if it weren't for that click/shrink-wrap license telling you that by opening that package or clicking that button, you sign away your rights.
Re:Surely (Score:2)
Actually no. Copyright is about the right to make copies, not distribute it. And all software is by default, copyrighted by the author. Without a license to say you can copy it; you have no rights to make other copies at all, for any purpose.
In fact it has been ruled that even loading software into your computer is an act of copying it into the memory, so you can't run software without a license (legally).
Re:Surely (Score:2)
Making copies for the purpose of redistributing them is where the courts tend to draw the line, whether it's Honest Bob's DVD Duplication Operation, or 1337 Joe's Napster archive.
Re:Surely (Score:2)
No. 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu] permits copying of software if "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".
I believe this portion of copyright law was passed in response to ridiculous rulings that did find that copying to RAM was infringement.
Re:Anti-Slashdot effect (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes it does; the decompiled source is a derivative work.
> The [GPL] does not require anyone to accept
> it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect,
> or even experimentally modify GPL'd software.
In the UK it does; you need to get permission to make a copy in memory, or an installed copy on the hard disk. Sounds stupid but it's there.
Re:GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Has it actually been enforced on a mass scale? you only really hear of the minor disputes about copyright. As for actual violations of the GPL there pritty much rare. I've (personally) not heard of any people getting dragged to court about this.
I think in general that people feel more relaxed with the GPL, after knowing the basics of the license people dont seem to worry about what effects it will have on them. Where as when a new MS EULA comes out every person who understands legal writing reads it in pure terror, in hope that nothing more has been made "illegal" in there eyes.
Just another $0.02 from me
Re:The (Unsuccessful) Slashdot Blackout (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The (Unsuccessful) Slashdot Blackout (Score:2)
Re:(-1, Flamebait) (Score:2)
Re:pointless (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL is different from other licenses. The GPL grants rights of redistribution that copyright law does not. Most proprietary licenses restrict your behavior in ways that copyright does not, and hence may be unenforcable. Things like restrictions on reverse engineering, not using the software to promote [insert icky cause X], allowing the licensor to change the terms of the agreement at will and without notification, etc., should all be struck down in court.
In short, the article is claiming that the GPL is on far more stable legal footing than any other license in the proprietary world.
Re:What about 'use' for students (Score:2)
Welcome to the world of "why all EULAs should be considered legally invalid". Many of us believe this. If you refuse to agree to an EULA, honestly, what can the company do to you? Tell you you don't have the right to make fair use of copyrighted material you have purchased? Apparently, Microsoft and most other off-the-shelf commercial software houses would like us all to believe they have this power.
Unfortunately, the courts would likely agree with them, if it ever came up ... under what I like to call the Don't Rock The Boat doctrine. This basically states that if an industry, society or business model would be sufficiently disrupted by a logical ruling, the illogical status quo (or de facto status quo), regardless of how illogical, must be upheld. (That's an empyrical analysis, of course, not official doctrine.)
Re:Stupid human laws. (Score:2)
What the World Wants and how to get it [osearth.com]
Funny how it doesn't include the wanting of war.
This is an example of "open to improve."