On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Vic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All right, I grant an irrevocable privilege, a right, to the software >> users, as in, developers who make use of my code, *not* the end users >> who might be getting it through a company selling a product. > > You appear not to have read the GPL. > > Anyone passing on a product derivative from a GPL-licensed object must > pass on those same rights to the recipient. The rights are deemed to be > granted from the original copyright owner (see the licence - it's all > there). > > So the end-user does indeed receive grants of rights from you, even if you > didn't give them any code directly. This is explicitly laid out in the > GPL. Your understanding of the rights grant is simply incorrect.
It seems you don't understand how reality works. One _must_ not cross the street when the red light is on, yet people cross the street this way all the time. It happens, really. Yes, companies must pass the same rights to the recipient, but then often don't. It happens, really. I don't give the end users anything, I give permission to the software users, and what they do is their own problem. They can choose to violate the license, and in that case the end users get nothing. If the end users sue the company, they'll get nothing because they never received any license. It's only a matter between me and the company, and if I say it's OK, there's no case. The end users receive their rights from the company, not from me. >>> This is completely untrue. the end-user *must* receive a copy of the GPL >>> (that's a condition of compliance) and is free to accept or reject that >>> licence as he sees fit. >> >> I'm not talking about the GPL, I'm talking in general. > > So your argument boils down to "the GPL grants rights that other licences > do not"? Well colour me surprised... No, I didn't say anything like that, this is a straw man argument, and it's particularily convenient that you didn't quote what I wrote right after this: > In the specific case of the GPL, the company might be violating the > GPL, so the end user would not see the license, but that's a problem > between me, and the company; the licensor, and the licensee. See? The GPL is no exception; the license is still a contract between the licensor (me), and the licensee (the company). The end user has another license between the the company (licensor), and the end user (licensee). *If* the company chooses to do that. The company might chose to not do that, in which case it will be in violation of the license from me, *but* I can choose to not do anything about it. >> This is a problem between the licensor and the licensee, if I don't >> have a problem, and they don't have a problem, then there is no >> problem. Ultimately I can change the license anyway. > > So you're saying you have a right not to enforce your rights? Where > exactly is there anything of substance here. Of course you can let others > ride slip-shod over your rights, if that's your choice. That's right, I have the right own a gun, and I can choose not to exercise it, I have the right to criticize the government, and I can choose not to exercise it. It's entire up to me what license I choose, and it's entirely up to me to decide how to enforce it. There's nothing wrong with choosing a BSD license, or a GPL license and not enforce it. It's *my* choice. > But earlier, you were claiming that the GPL did not afford protections to > developers and/or end users. In that, you were completely wrong. If you > actually meant to say "I don't need to enforce my own copyrights if I want > to", then of course you're right. But these two positions have nothing > whatsoever to do with each other. It's copyright that gives original authors protection, and makes the GPL enforceable. If I chose not to enforce the license, and the end users didn't get the license, the end users get nothing, and there's nothing the FSF can do about it. It doesn't matter what is written in the GPL. >> Copyright legislation is meant to protect the author, if the author >> doesn't have a problem with the way his/her software is being used, >> then there's no problem. > > That's not necessarily the case. Contract legislation may also be > involved, depending on your jurisdiction. A contract is also between two parties, and if the two parties don't have a problem, there's no problem. > But claiming that you have the right not to enforce your rights - which is > true - is a very, very long way from "A right is not something a person > (e.g. a developer) can make it go away on a whim, and that is the case for > what the GPL gives to users", which was your earlier position. It is still correct, because the GPL can only give rights to end users *if* I chose to enforce the GPL, or *if* the company distributed the software with that license. In the first case, it's entirely up to me, I can make it go away in a whim. >> The final end user becomes involved *only* if the company allows it, > > No, this is absolutely not true in the case of the GPL. > > The end-user has rights granted him regardless of what any intervening > distributor might try to do. Only if *I* choose to enforce the license. >> not if the company is infringing, which is not a problem if the >> original author doesn't have a problem. > > Really - you ought to read the GPL. It says different things to what you > claim it says. What the GPL says is irrelevant. Get it? One more time: the end users get their rights from the company, the company doesn't distribute the software through the GPL, which is a violation of the GPL, and enforceable by copyright law with protects me, the original author, if I chose to enforce the license, *then* the end users can get their rights, and the law will protect them, but *if* I choose not to enforce them, the users get nothing, it doesn't matter what the GPL says, because both sides, me (the licensor), and the company (the licensee) choose to ignore it. Period. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
