Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 07:35:03PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: |On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 09:27:05AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: | Tomasz Wegrzanowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | What kind of free licence make such situations possible ??? | (for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change |his mind and take away your freedom) | | I'd be surprised if this were enforcable, and it would be fun for | the FSF to find the last `free' version and fork it. | |Point me to last free pine |You know what Im going to do !!! | What is the difference between last free ssh license and the last free pine? It should be possible to fork a free license. If this is not the case in US, then all free software should be licensed in other countries? --JS
Re: webmin license
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 07:12:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: For comparison, the Finnish law says, unofficially translated by me as: [snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of the Danish law] (Apparently this right can be revoked by a contract.) It explicitly can't here. -- Henning Makholm
Re: webmin license
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:26:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: [snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of the Danish law] Not according to your previous message: you said there that the Danish law required one to have the right to run the program, but the Finnish one requires you to be in possession of a legal copy. (Apparently this right can be revoked by a contract.) It explicitly can't here. Clauses 2 and 3 of the same paragraph in Finnish law explicitly can't, but this was clause 1. Clause 2 deals with the right to a backup copy, and clause 3 deals with the right to observe how the program works to determine the methods it uses. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: webmin license
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:26:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: [snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of the Danish law] Not according to your previous message: you said there that the Danish law required one to have the right to run the program, but the Finnish one requires you to be in possession of a legal copy. Oh yes. I somehow didn't catch that difference (stupid given that was exactly why I brought up the topic). The exact wording here is Den, der har ret til at benytte et edb-program, translating to He/she who has the right to use [not run] a computer program. (Apparently this right can be revoked by a contract.) It explicitly can't here. Clauses 2 and 3 of the same paragraph in Finnish law explicitly can't, but this was clause 1. Double-checking again, I find that I was wrong. The rights to a backup copy and to reverse engineering cannot be revoked by contract, but the right to make necessary copies and correct bugs apparently can. Do I feel foolish now? -- Henning Makholm
Re: webmin license
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you said there that the Danish law required one to have the right to run the program, but the Finnish one requires you to be in possession of a legal copy. This is getting interesting. When the clause was first added to Danish law in 1992 it said He/she who has lawfully acquired a computer program The commentary to that law said that a lawful acquirer is either someone who has bought (etc.) a copy of the program or someone who by contract has the right to use the program. (That change was made to implement EU directive 91/250/EEC, Articles 5 and 6 - so it is not surprising that Danish and Finnish law is similar). When the law was rewritten and reorganised in 1995 the language was changed to He/she who has the right to use a computer program The commentary to the proposal described that change as editorial. Based on that, one can probably argue in a Danish court that the legislators want me to have the right to use a program if I have bought (etc.) a lawful copy of it. Which means that use conditions in copyright licenses are probably not binding for Danish users who do not redistribute the program. By the way, the Danish software industry fiercely fought the part of the 1992 change that gave users the right to fix bugs. They declared (according to report of the the parliament committee that considered the law) that the rule .. that a buyer of a computer programs has the right to correct errors is a very grave and harmful rule which ought to be removed from the law (!!). IANAL, and the translations from Danish are all mine. -- Henning Makholm I Gudfaders navn og sønnens og den hellige ånds! Bevar os for djævelens værk og for Muhammeds, den forbandedes, underfundigheder! Med dig står det værre til end med nogen anden, thi at lytte til Muhammed er det værste af alt.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without getting something tangible (a consideration) in return cannot be legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license to be revoked as soon as the author wants to. Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the software is most certainly consideration. There is no requirement that the consideration be tangible; intangible goods are fine. The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the software is most certainly consideration. Yes, but I was thinking the other way around: the author of the program does not necessarily get any consideration out of putting his program under the GPL (which ought to count as a promise to enter the described contract with anyone who accepts the conditions). So, legally, what prevents an American author from telling CheapBytes sorry, I changed my mind so foobar is not GPLed anymore. Would you please destroy all of your CDs or pay a license fee to me? The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license. Huh? Are public licenses a sui generis case in American law? -- Henning Makholm
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the software is most certainly consideration. There is no requirement that the consideration be tangible; intangible goods are fine. This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author* of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this. The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license. This I suppose would make a difference... I hope :}
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 03:00:12PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license. It's a license which offers contractual terms for those who wish to redistribute the software. In exchange for restricting yourself to the conditions of the license you gain the right to redistribute the software. Of course, you already have certain rights with the software anyways, (you have the right to make a backup copy and to run the program, for example). However, those rights are much more restrictive than those laid out in the GPL. -- Raul
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author* of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this. Yes, and that means that the copier cannot sue the author. So what? In what scenario do you think the copier should be allowed to sue the author?
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, but I was thinking the other way around: the author of the program does not necessarily get any consideration out of putting his program under the GPL (which ought to count as a promise to enter the described contract with anyone who accepts the conditions). It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract. The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license. Huh? Are public licenses a sui generis case in American law? No, the GPL is in the category of a grant of permission. If I give you permission to walk on my land, that's a grant of permission. The GPL gives you permission to copy the program (something copyright law would otherwise prohibit) as long as you conform to some requirements. We have an owner who authored the software and holds the copypright for something distributed under GPL, and a copier who has made a copy of it. If the copy is in violation of the GPL, then the owner can sue the copier. He sues for violation of copyright--for making an illegal copy--not for violation of the GPL. The copier can defend himself by proving that the GPL gave him permission to copy, and then the issue will be about whether the copier complied with the GPL. But the actual tort is copyright violation, not breach of contract. The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so what? What would he sue FOR? Thomas
