Re: Copyright
John Cowan wrote: You insist that you can own something 100% and relinquish 100% control at the same time. There is not a single legal precedent for this anywhere. Tell it to the FSF Marines. What GPL does is to relinquish control over *redistribution* of the material not the material itself. There is no legal precedent on GPL coz. it is clear enough, and coz. it is clear enough, no need for the 'assistance' of a court arose. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Copyright
Mahesh, I appreciate your comments. It is good to hear from you. Fortunately (or unfortunately) court precedent trumps assertion. Just because a lot of people believe that something is right does not make it right - ethically or legally. There are over a hundred examples of things that were common practice for decades until ruled illegal by a court. When it comes to the law, it is not prudent to assume. GPL advocates want the GPL to become the king of all free software licenses. And if wants to be the king, it will have to go through the fire of legal review in a court. I am not being cynical, but the GPL is too overreaching. This is not just my opinion. I have visited dozens of free software websites and developer disfavor about the GPL is steadily increasing. It is just a matter of time before the tenuousness of this license ends up in a court. I think money will also force this issue into court, because inevitably, someone's confusion about the license will lead to the loss of a ton of money. When big cash is on the table, a court case is around the corner. Stay in touch. kb -Original Message- From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:paivakil;vsnl.net] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:33 AM To: Ken Brown Cc: Brendan Hide; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright Ken Brown wrote: FSF has bullied a couple of developers, but hasn't had a judge rule in their favor yet. When they win in a court of law, I'll open my mind to their sales pitch a little more. If the means used by FSF are 'bullying', how do you describe the activities of the BSA? I regard the fact that there is no decision in favour of the GPL as a major plus point in its favour. Absence of a ruling in its favour means, to me, :- 1. The license is easy to comply with. 2. There is no decision on GPL, coz no body went to court over it. 3. Nobody went to court over GPL coz. nobody continues with the violations once the fact is pointed out. That the FSF (or any other author who released his/her software under the GPL) never had to go to court is a major plus point of the GPL. Without the restrictions of a license that insists on strict enforcement of your copyright, ... You do not need a license to protect / enforce your copyright. The statute book does it. From my research, agreeing to GPL your work does not technically revoke your ownership of the playground, but it does revoke almost all of the rights and privileges that come with ownership Will you please clarify that? I cannot control what anybody does with my work, besides assert credit, That is the *intention* of the GPL. In other words, it is not a bug but a feature. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Copyright vs? Click-wrap contract
IANAL, but I think I have finally nailed this sucker. If anybody disagrees with me please let me know why. You have the right to do anything with a copyrighted work only if you have agreed and complied with (and read) the license. If you have not read the license, then you are not aware of your rights to the work and you should assume that you have no rights over the work, bar the fair use rights given to you by the law and international treaties. Imagine you pick up some software from a store, but the box contains everything except the license. Do you have the right to use the software? Legally, you need to secure a license before you can use the software. Of course, nobody would, in their right mind anyway, sue you for using the software you paid them for. If the license gives you secondary rights, then you have to read that license in order to get those rights. If a user claims that there was no assent that the user agreed with the license, because the license was not presented to them, then there was no assent from the author that the user can *use* the work either. Fair use laws give the user some basic rights but that is it. If anything still needs clickwrap, it is the warranty. The only reason for this is that the law already gives the user fair use rights, thus potentially giving room for a suit. Other than that, I do not see why a clickwrap licenses/contract are in any way legally necessary. Here, I can easily see Larry's single-click click-wrap solution working very well. -- Brendan Hide [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Writer SA Computer Magazine http://www.sacm.co.za/ +27 21 715 7134 - Opinions expressed in this Email are those of the individual sending it and not necessarily of the Company. This Email is confidential. - -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Manifestation of Assent and the OSL
Mahes T Pai wrote: You will be aware that people can enter into contracts *without* signing a shred of paper. Offers, and acceptance can be by conduct also. Not that I am disagreeing with you or the OSL just making sure that every one is aware of the position of law. You're right. But the issue we're dealing with is where the courts say that the conduct of using the software is not sufficient manifestation of assent to the contract terms. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: BXAPL - request for comments
Larry, Perhaps you're still confusing terms. Those sections of the QPL don't require that copyrights of modifications be passed to the copyright holder. They are simply grant-back licenses, albeit a little awkwardly phrased. -- I still maintain that BXAPL section 12.5 is a nearly exact copy (semantically, that is, not literally) of QPL sections 3b and 6c toghether. If my understanding of English fails me at this point, what is the difference, please? -- Anything that is the author's prerogative under copyright law can be licensed to third parties under certain restrictions. I don't see where contract law comes in. Because many licenses deal with much more than the author's prerogative under copyright law. There are many provisions in these licenses that have no analogue in copyright law at all, including warranty, etc., etc., etc. -- John Cowan's mail cleared some points you're trying to make here. From his mail I conclude that you are right in pointing out that various provisions in the BXAPL will be unenforcible without invoking contract law - in addition to copyright law. I'll reconsider what this means for the BXAPL. Damn, that was my most fervent wish. I haven't been getting enough flames on license-discuss. Why don't you come and see for yourself? Anyway, the English seem to like those wigs, so what? Furthermore, the French legal system and practices are presumably *quite* different from ours - and both will differ from yours and then again from the English. Still, intellectual property laws are sait to be quite comparable due to the international treaties on the subject. So they say. I just practice here in California and the U.S. -- Does 'practicing' imply that you are still in your apprenticeship ;-) (Sorry, couln't resist the bait) Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyright
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GPL advocates want the GPL to become the king of all free software licenses. And if wants to be the king, it will have to go through the fire of legal review in a court. Not really. The GPL relies more on public opinion than it does on the force of law. This is inevitable given the international character of free software development and the national character of law. Most programmers, grumble though they may about the GPL, will not violate it voluntarily. Any organization which tries to violate the GPL--and several have--runs into a firestorm of protest from programmers around the world. It's generally much easier to give in than to fight it in a court of law; even a victory in the court would still be a loss in the real world. I am not being cynical, but the GPL is too overreaching. This is not just my opinion. I have visited dozens of free software websites and developer disfavor about the GPL is steadily increasing. It is just a matter of time before the tenuousness of this license ends up in a court. I think money will also force this issue into court, because inevitably, someone's confusion about the license will lead to the loss of a ton of money. When big cash is on the table, a court case is around the corner. Disfavor about the GPL is steadily increasing? You are obviously new to these flamewars. The GPL has been roundly despised in certain quarters since it was written. If anything, I'd say that developers accept the GPL more now than ever, since its adoption by Linux and increased understanding of what it really means. Confusion about the license leads naturally to avoidance of software under the license. It seems quite unlikely to me that confusion would ever lead to the loss of ``a ton of money.'' Anyhow, the point of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is hardly to discuss the nature of the GPL. That's what gnu.misc.discuss is for. If you want to discuss whether the GPL is an open source license, talk about it here. If you want to talk about whether the GPL is a good license, take it to gnu.misc.disucss. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyright vs? Click-wrap contract
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:42 am, Brendan Hide wrote: You have the right to do anything with a copyrighted work only if you have agreed and complied with (and read) the license. Bull pucky! The vast majority of copyrighted works don't even have licenses. Reaching my hand over about two feet, I find myself picking up a copyrighted work at random. This appears to be In the Court of the Crimson King, by King Crimson. Let's see if there's a license in it...no there is not. Let me reach in the other direction... The C++ Standard Libary by Nicolai Josuttis...no license. Licenses and copyrights are beasts residing in different phyla. Imagine you pick up some software from a store, but the box contains everything except the license. Do you have the right to use the software? Legally, you need to secure a license before you can use the software. Of course, nobody would, in their right mind anyway, sue you for using the software you paid them for. If I pick up some software from a store and pay for it, and obtain a sales reciept, then I am the legal owner of that copy. If I have a sales receipt then a sale has been made. As an owner of the copy, I possess numerous rights, including the right to use, dispose of, make archival copies of, and reverse engineer the software. Of course, many lawyers will disagree with me. But the boxes and receipts in my possession argue in my favor. One example: Windows ME. The box clearly says Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition Operating System. The same is listed on the Certificate of Authenticity. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
