Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Jules Bean writes: But you think that minors cannot work on GPL programs? I said *if* a minor cannot agree to the GPL. I'm not entirely certain he can't. It is my understanding that the theory behind the unenforceability of contracts with minors is that they are considered to be unable to understand the consequences of entering into a contract. Thus if you get our 16 year old to agree to pay you $1000 a week for the use of your program and then sue him when he doesn't pay, the judge will tell you that the kid didn't know what he was getting into and you won't get your money. You probably will get your program back, though. One could argue that the GPL is different in that in accepting it the kid doesn't give anything up and so his decision cannot harm him. At worst the copyright owner would be unable to require specific performance and would have to settle for revoking the rights granted by the GPL, putting the kid where he would be had he never accepted it. Not much of a problem, really. A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not competent to make the decision to do so. It is probable that a license (free or not) granted by a minor is void unless he gets his guardian's permission. Come to that, minors presumably can't install (commercial or otherwise) software themselves.. Sure they can. It is perfectly legal to enter into a contract with a minor. You just can't sue to enforce it. Thus our 16 year old can buy a game, cheerfully click on yes when asked if he agrees not to reverse engineer it, and then do so anyway with complete impunity. Or make use of 'public domain' data. Huh?? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not competent to make the decision to do so. It is probable that a license (free or not) granted by a minor is void unless he gets his guardian's permission. Boy, I hope that doesn't invalidate all the code (and copyright assignments) I wrote for FSF and Debian before I turned 18 :-) (I'm 20 now.)
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On 18 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote: Jules Bean writes: But you think that minors cannot work on GPL programs? I said *if* a minor cannot agree to the GPL. I'm not entirely certain he can't. It is my understanding that the theory behind the unenforceability of contracts with minors is that they are considered to be unable to understand the consequences of entering into a contract. Thus if you get our 16 year old to agree to pay you $1000 a week for the use of your program and then sue him when he doesn't pay, the judge will tell you that the kid didn't know what he was getting into and you won't get your money. You probably will get your program back, though. One could argue that the GPL is different in that in accepting it the kid doesn't give anything up and so his decision cannot harm him. At worst the copyright owner would be unable to require specific performance and would have to settle for revoking the rights granted by the GPL, putting the kid where he would be had he never accepted it. Not much of a problem, really. I checked with my local friendly software lawyer. He said that minors can enter into copyright licenses - the key point being that a copyright license *gives* a right which the minor didn't have before (so he can't complain it's restricting him). That does leave open the question that a minor might well be able to avoid the more circuitous twists of a license, if he claims he didn't understand his obligations. A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not competent to make the decision to do so. It is probable that a license (free or not) granted by a minor is void unless he gets his guardian's permission. Interesting point. I passed that question on to my friend. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Jules Bean writes (Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's): ... There is a license. I quote from the book in my hands Copyright (c) 1997,1996 O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Thats a license. The most restrictive around. No, it's a copyright notice. It's precisely NOT any kind of licence. You see `all rights reserved' ? Copyright law makes it a civil offence to do certain things to a copyrighted work without permission (called a licence) from the copyright holder. Children can in most jurisdictions be held responsible for civil offences they commit. Ian.
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Ian Jackson writes (Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's): ... Copyright law makes it a civil offence to do certain things to a copyrighted work without permission (called a licence) from the copyright holder. Children can in most jurisdictions be held responsible for civil offences they commit. I should add though that often you wouldn't be able to get any reasonable redress against the child, though you might against the parents. Ian.
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. Boy, I hope that doesn't invalidate all the code (and copyright assignments) I wrote for FSF and Debian before I turned 18 :-) It probably does. However, a license is - as John puts it - nothing more than a legally binding promise not to sue over copyright infringements (and, by extension, a copyright assignment is simply a transfer of the right to sue) so as long as you in fact don't sue, the practical differences are not serious. I think there is a theoretical possibility that if you go personally bankrupt your creditors would be able to force you to sue FSF or other distributores and attempt to get money for your code - because the promise not to sue you made as a minor did not legally bind you. There's nothing to stop you from issuing a binding copyright assignment *now*, which would prevent that scenario. Judging from the FSF's usual insistence on having their legal formalia water tight, I think they would appreciate it if you did. -- Henning Makholm
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not competent to make the decision to do so. It is probable that a license (free or not) granted by a minor is void unless he gets his guardian's permission. Boy, I hope that doesn't invalidate all the code (and copyright assignments) I wrote for FSF and Debian before I turned 18 :-) no, because you haven't changed your mind yet... that's probably an implicit statement that you still want it to be under the current license, or something. it's also a matter of practice rather than theory, and for what it's worth, i could (read: did) take out very hefty student loans when i was fifteen, and those were -definitely- contracts, and i signed them and everything. granted this doesn't actually make it legal and i wouldn't base the dfsg on it ;) however, according to jules we minors can agree to licenses... that means apsl is definitely violating the discrimination clause by locking it away from us. also, the argument that bruce, wichert, and ian (but not necessarily in that order) made about the requiring us to report changes to apple via a specific url and thus possibly making the license nonfree when apple folds, which was correctly rebutted by osi, is -not- the reason that clause is bad; it's bad because it forces us to report changes period. we shouldn't be required to do *anything*. if we have to notify anyone, right now, it's non free. ditto if we have to make it available gratis by electronic download... basically all of 2.2(b) and (c). further, the osi rebuttal to the revocation on patent lawsuit clause is an absolute lie. there's nothing in 12.1(c) that says 'affected original code'. and i'm not too happy about anything in section 3, 5, 10, 11, or most of 13, either, though it's probably not going to disqualify the license. (10 is particularly distressing because it's not really clear if i'm allowed to call my modified versions of apple product foobar apple product foobar, or if i have to say it's something else). now i understand that the apsl is a product of lawyeritis and that the apple guys seem to be genuinely interested in fixing it, but if they're to continue using the term open source, they really must remove those non-free clauses. /rant - --phouchg Reasoning is partly insane --Rush, Anagram (for Mongo) PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~phouchg/pgpkey.txt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNvJ0+549M+7gJHRJEQKQYACfQOVHPJDiRuKdj19qQmsFBojX11YAoOsJ XoT9+UOGBLexqpo/7LKNuoeF =gg0t -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Ben Pfaff writes: Boy, I hope that doesn't invalidate all the code (and copyright assignments) I wrote for FSF and Debian before I turned 18 :-) Did you get your mother to sign for you :-) -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Jules writes: I checked with my local friendly software lawyer. He said that minors can enter into copyright licenses - the key point being that a copyright license *gives* a right which the minor didn't have before (so he can't complain it's restricting him). My thinking exactly. I'm always happy to see my legal reasoning confirmed by someone who actually knows what he is talking about. Of course, this line of reasoning would not apply to proprietary licenses such as the EULA that attempt to take away rights that you would have under just copyright law. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Mar 19, Ron wrote: I quote: ... In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter into contracts to accept this license. Sorry kids.. you may be old enough to write your own OS, but you'll need a note from mum to hack at apple code! I'm afraid that's a standard provision of contract law: you can't enter into a contract with a minor without a legal guardian's permission. Ergo minors can't legally use any licensed code (unless the author grants some sort of special dispensation, but no binding obligation can be placed on the minor). So you can give a minor permission to use GPL'ed code, but you can't stop him/her from violating the virus clauses. There's a big difference between a contract, and a license. (Well, maybe it's a pretty small difference, actually...). Are you saying that under-16s can legally duplicate books? Magazines? Sell other people's photos? Build and sell machines which violate patents? AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though. Discussion cc:ed to -legal. Please remove -devel from the Cc:. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:12:22PM +, Jules Bean wrote: There's a big difference between a contract, and a license. (Well, maybe it's a pretty small difference, actually...). Au contraire, there is NO difference. A License to use Copyrighted material is in fact a contract. Are you saying that under-16s can legally duplicate books? Magazines? Sell other people's photos? Build and sell machines which violate patents? AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though. Minors can not legally be held to contracts in the US, however in the real world you just watch as this big corporate finds some excuse to sue their parents -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - Knghtbrd you people are all insane. Joey knight: sure, that's why we work on Debian. JHM Knghtbrd: get in touch with your inner nutcase. pgpRoJ5AonR3c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:12:22PM +, Jules Bean wrote: There's a big difference between a contract, and a license. (Well, maybe it's a pretty small difference, actually...). Au contraire, there is NO difference. A License to use Copyrighted material is in fact a contract. Are you saying that under-16s can legally duplicate books? Magazines? Sell other people's photos? Build and sell machines which violate patents? AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though. Minors can not legally be held to contracts in the US, however in the real world you just watch as this big corporate finds some excuse to sue their parents Hmm.. I know that the law protects minors from the effects of signed contracts (although I don't know the details), but I'm pretty damn sure that a minor cannot indiscriminately photocopy books without fear of recrimination.. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:36:57PM +, Jules Bean wrote: AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though. Minors can not legally be held to contracts in the US, however in the real world you just watch as this big corporate finds some excuse to sue their parents Hmm.. I know that the law protects minors from the effects of signed contracts (although I don't know the details), but I'm pretty damn sure that a minor cannot indiscriminately photocopy books without fear of recrimination.. But in the case of a book there's no license. The only contract is the contract of handing the person behind the counter money and receiving a product. This is about the only contract I have seen upheld in court if entered into by a minor without a guardian.. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - ...It was a lot faster than I thought it was going to be, much faster than NT. If further speed increases are done to the server for the final release, Oracle is going to be able to wipe their ass with SQL SERVER and hand it back to M$ while the Oracle admins ... migrate their databases over to Linux! pgpbYr2mTDw9a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:36:57PM +, Jules Bean wrote: AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though. Minors can not legally be held to contracts in the US, however in the real world you just watch as this big corporate finds some excuse to sue their parents Hmm.. I know that the law protects minors from the effects of signed contracts (although I don't know the details), but I'm pretty damn sure that a minor cannot indiscriminately photocopy books without fear of recrimination.. But in the case of a book there's no license. The only contract is the contract of handing the person behind the counter money and receiving a product. This is about the only contract I have seen upheld in court if entered into by a minor without a guardian.. There is a license. I quote from the book in my hands Copyright (c) 1997,1996 O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Thats a license. The most restrictive around. Now, you don't know the answer here, and neither do I. You don't think licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to believe. I suggest we wait until someone else comes along who can clear this up. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, you don't know the answer here, and neither do I. You don't think licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to believe. I suggest we wait until someone else comes along who can clear this up. IANAL, so this possibly doesn't qualify as cleaning up, but I'd like to thow in my two coins anyway: No, a minor cannot accept liabilities, so he cannot accept a contract that places greater demands on him than if the contract had not existed. However, this is not the case for free licenses like the GPL: by accepting the GPL what you have to accept is not liabilities you didn't have before - you only have to recognize that the rights given to you by the GPL have certain bounds. (And you have to accept not to sue the author over any losses connected to your use of the program, but I don't think you could do that WITHOUT the GPL either, because then you wouldn't have any right to get harmed by the program in the first place.) One should not use analogies, but nevertheless: consider I paved a path across my front yard and put up a sign saying anyone, feel free to use this path if you don't step on the lawn. The same logic as in the license case would lead to the conclusion that minors can't legally use my path because they can't accept the responsibility of not stepping on the lawn. However, this is bogus, because if the minor stepped on my lawn even without legally accepting my sign, he would still be trespassing. -- Henning Makholm
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
Jules Bean writes: There is a license. I quote from the book in my hands Copyright (c) 1997,1996 O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. That is not a license. A license grants rights. That grants none. It is just a copyright notice. You would have exactly the same rights if the publisher omitted it entirely. You don't think licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to believe. A free software license grants rights beyond those permitted to the owner of a copy by copyright law. If a free license is a contract and a minor can therefor not agree to it, he receives none of the rights granted by the license. This puts him in exactly the same legal situation wrt his copy of emacs as to his copy of _Programming Perl_. I don't think that a 16 year old who was caught selling bootleg copies of _Programming Perl_ could use the I'm a minor so I don't have to honor my contracts defense, because no contract is involved. He didn't enter into an agreement to give up his right to copy _Programming Perl_ in return for some consideration: he lost it through operation of law. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's
On 18 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote: Jules Bean writes: You don't think licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to believe. A free software license grants rights beyond those permitted to the owner of a copy by copyright law. If a free license is a contract and a minor can therefor not agree to it, he receives none of the rights granted by the license. This puts him in exactly the same legal situation wrt his copy of emacs as to his copy of _Programming Perl_. I don't think that a 16 year old who was caught selling bootleg copies of _Programming Perl_ could use the I'm a minor so I don't have to honor my contracts defense, because no contract is involved. He didn't enter into an agreement to give up his right to copy _Programming Perl_ in return for some consideration: he lost it through operation of law. But you think that minors cannot work on GPL programs? (Or any other free software, for that matter)... Come to that, minors presumably can't install (commercial or otherwise) software themselves.. Or make use of 'public domain' data. Hmm.. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/
