Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract. That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :} 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? Well, I was thinking along the following lines: If the GPL is a contract, but it is held to be void, then issues could arise about the validity of free software licenses in general. Free software licenses would have to be re-crafted into some form in which the author receives consideration, and free software would quickly turn into either proprietary or public domain software, which would be bad. Since it's not a contract, that won't happen.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 05:03:00PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: It's a license which offers terms for those who wish to redistribute the software. The terms are not contractual (though in many respects the *interpretation* of the words follows similar rules to the rules for interpreting contracts)--the terms are a grant of permission. You are trying to make it a contract by rephrasing it as an exchange, but it really doesn't legally function that way. A contract has many properties that the GPL lacks. It is instead a grant of permission, like where a person gives you permission to borrow their car or walk across their field. Ok, what -- specifically -- is the distinction? -- Raul
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: 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. Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the author. Why choose different terminology, here? 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? That's an interesting claim. While you might be right about there being no contract, it would have to be for some other reason: being granted copyright permission is something of value. -- Raul
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said: 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? This came up, I believe, in the context of an author revoking the 'permission to copy' that the GPL grants -- on software that was previously given out under the GPL. E.g., openssh is based on an old but free version (though non-GPL, I think?) of ssh. The author of the original ssh has since moved to a non-free license; does the author also have the right to revoke the old license, thus making openssh in violation? I have to admit that this seems to be a rather absurd conclusion, but, of course, IANAL. The issue here isn't necessarily the right to sue so much as the ability of the author to win a suit taken against openssh users/author. -- Jeremy Hankins (Nowan), [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg/pgp5 fingerprint = 3FEF 96EC FC60 677D 385D 3B49 318D 00CB 3799 DD60 pgp2.6 fingerprint = F2 6A DE 4A 78 73 D1 B5 02 9D 6F 00 C6 DC 5B EB
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: 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. Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the author. Why choose different terminology, here? Because there is a definite distinction (at least in non-moral rights copyright regimes such as the US and UK) between the author and the copyright owner. In particular, the author can sell his copyright to some other person or legal entity. In fact, if (for some reason) the original author sells the copyright to a GPL'ed work (say because of a court judgement) the new owner might be inclined to revoke the license. Lynn
Re: New draft of jcode.pl licence
At Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:09:05 +0100, Mark Wielaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as all ;# copyright notices are retained. Redistribution with modification is ;# allowed provided that you make your modified version distinguishable ;# from the original one. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ;# ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE DISCLAIMED. How about this? Any comments? A modified version differs from the original one (otherwise it is not modified, right?) and it will therefore be distinguishable using for instance diff. I think one should be clearer about the means needed to make the distinction (file names, --version flag, ...). Why not use the text of the GPL (Clause 2 a) after the provided that: You [must] cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Hmm, I think all of above modification are allowed, because we can distinguish from original one. We can select any option of modifications. I believe this follows Debian Free Software Guildline. Any objection? I'd like to upgrade jcode.pl in fml, requesting to upstream author of fml and closes Bug#52108 (and maybe Bug#52109, both are release critical). Is there any problem? Thanks, Fumitoshi UKAI
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, what -- specifically -- is the distinction? A contract is where I promise to do X and you promise to do Y. The basic rule is that we must simultaneously agree to the terms of the contract, which must involve each of us getting something. If one party fails to follow through on their part, then the other party may recover damages for breach of contract. Damages are money. Very rarely, one may obtain specific performance, which is where the court orders a party to do what the contract said. Usually, however, the court will not do that, and the breacher simply writes out a check for the damages. A grant of permission is where I have control over a thing, usually some kind of ownership right, and I tell you that you may use it. I may attach conditions to that use. If you then use it, I have lost the right to recover damages for trespass or theft, though I have the right to take it back at any time. Now with copyright, my right to take it back functions very oddly, because the copying terms essentially attach to the particular copy. Once I give you permission to reproduce copy X as much as you like (under some set of terms) then as long as you comply with the terms, you can copy X and I can't take it back. What I have the right to take back is your right to copy some other copy of the same thing, copy Y. So the GPL or other such public licenses can't really be retracted. Thomas
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: 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. Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the author. Why choose different terminology, here? Because copyright rights can be transferred, and it's the current owner who has the rights and the power to make a grant of permission, not the author. 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? That's an interesting claim. It's not a claim, it's a question. Thomas
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: 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? Can't the owner, since he hasn't bound himself by the promise, change his mind and revoke his promise, threatening to sue the copier if he does not stop copying? In practice, no. The terms attach to specific copies. The grant of permission applies to a particular copy (you may copy this physical book does not imply you may copy that other physical book that happens to contain the same text). All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies. Thomas
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the author. Why choose different terminology, here? On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Because copyright rights can be transferred, and it's the current owner who has the rights and the power to make a grant of permission, not the author. Can the owner also revoke rights which have already been granted (which is what Lynn said)? [Especially: for the case where there was a contract?] -- Raul
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: 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? That's an interesting claim. It's not a claim, it's a question. The claim was the first part of the first sentence: The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't bound himself by contract The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that people pay big money for. With the recognition which comes from the software distribution, the owner also gets testing (bug reports), professional contacts, etc. -- Raul
Re: webmin license
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: Indeed a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2, which follows: [...] a) and b) contradict c). The GPL states that no further restrictions may be placed on the code. So all the parties mentioned in a) and b) may use the software under the terms of clause c). Brian
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies. That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications: I might still have the right to make one modified copy of the work, but I don't have any right to copy that one copy further. This still seems to imply that free software is not possible under U.S. law... I think he meant `as it applies to new released versions'. Once GPLed, always GPLed.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Henning Makholm wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies. That is bad enough as it is. I think he meant `as it applies to new released versions'. No, given what he wrote in the part I did not quote, it is obvious that he means the promise attaches itself to a single physical copy of the work - not to other perhaps identical copies it. Once GPLed, always GPLed. Courts are seldom impressed with slogans if they contradict the existing legal practise in the jurisdiction. -- Henning Makholm
Re: New draft of jcode.pl licence
I'd like to upgrade jcode.pl in fml, requesting to upstream author of fml and closes Bug#52108 (and maybe Bug#52109, both are release critical). Is there any problem? there are 3 copies of jcode.pl in Debian, one in fml, one in another package, and finally and actual libjcode-perl package. Could the three of you get together and work out one package which contains the file.
Re: webmin license
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:22:24PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: Indeed a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2, which follows: [...] a) and b) contradict c). The GPL states that no further restrictions may be placed on the code. So all the parties mentioned in a) and b) may use the software under the terms of clause c). I dont thinks so He licenced it under *patched* GPL More detailed statement overwrites less detailed one etc.
Re: webmin license
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2, which follows: [...] a) and b) contradict c). No, because (c) explicitly states that (a) and (b) takes precedense over the terms of the GPL. -- Henning Makholm Monsieur, vous êtes fou.
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Henning Makholm wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies. That is bad enough as it is. I think he meant `as it applies to new released versions'. No, given what he wrote in the part I did not quote, it is obvious that he means the promise attaches itself to a single physical copy of the work - not to other perhaps identical copies it. Exactly -- which is the same thing. Once you have received a copy, you may copy it again under the same terms, and so can the people who received it from you. Also, other copies that are identical obviously must have been released in the same way; otherwise, they would not be identical. Once GPLed, always GPLed. Courts are seldom impressed with slogans if they contradict the existing legal practise in the jurisdiction. In this case, there's no difference. Existing legal practice attaches the permission of use to individual copies, true, but all copies have the same permissions due to the explicit permission to copy and/or modify. It would require a new release, under a new license, to have a version that couldn't be redistributed. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -- d2deek at pmail.net | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :) | dusknet.dhis.net is a black hole for email.Use my Reply-To address. | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhis.net/~deek/
Re: webmin license
Brian Behlendorf writes: On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: Indeed a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2, which follows: [...] a) and b) contradict c). The GPL states that no further restrictions may be placed on the code. So all the parties mentioned in a) and b) may use the software under the terms of clause c). I agree with this, to a certain extent. If you want to use the GPL to license things to the public, you get to _add_ additional permissions (under separate cover, so to speak). But you don't obviously have the practical ability to _subtract_ permissions while still authorizing redistribution under the GPL. Let's take a whirlwind tour through the portions of the GPL which talk about its applicability in order to see why this is so. You don't get to modify the GPL: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. The applicability of the GPL is all-or-nothing: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The viral nature of the GPL doesn't include any separate permissions, restrictions, or conditions that a previous distributor has imposed: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. The GPL is the only source of authority for third parties to make and distribute copies: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void [...] 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. Finally, and most importantly, the GPL forbids the imposition of any more restrictive conditions: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. So, what if you received some GPLed code subject to a further restriction not expressed in the GPL itself? Well, that restriction, since it does not modify the GPL, contradicts it, and [i]f you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. This seems clear-cut to me. In fact, the FSF felt that it had to _specifically authorize_ a class of restrictions which it did consider legitimate: 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License. The fact that this paragraph needs to appear within the GPL itself clearly implies that the FSF believes that it is _not_ ordinarily permissible for the original copyright holder to add such restrictions. Let me be clear about what I mean here: I don't mean that the FSF says that you aren't allowed to license something to the public under those terms. I mean that, if you do license something that way, your license is self-defeating, because it doesn't effectively grant anybody else the right to redistribute your code! This situation is very different from the case in which people grant additional permissions (Linux kernel note from Linus, Qt linking exceptions, and all the other As a special exception clauses that _allow uses which would ordinarily be prohibited_). The GPL does not forbid you to grant additional permissions. It does forbid you to make additional restrictions. So a distribution with permissions not required by the GPL
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't bound himself by contract Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that people pay big money for. On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 09:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: But that is not a legal part of the promise (you can copy my code if you promise to be public about it), so I doubt it is legally relevant. It's implicit and explicit in the copying -- you have to leave the copyright notice intact and can only add to it. Interactive programs must have an interactive display of the copyright notice. Call it advertising, call it mindshare, call it defacto standardization, call it whatever.. it's real enough and it's the sort of thing corporations pay big bucks for. Then again, I've never heard of someone getting hit by a warrantee lawsuit on advertising or on a publicity campaign (as opposed to fraudulent advertising or libel). -- Raul
Re: webmin license
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean that, if you do license something that way, your license is self-defeating, because it doesn't effectively grant anybody else the right to redistribute your code! No. It is completely self-consistent to say I have my made own conditions for copying this program. They happen to be identical to the GPL except I add the sentence If you have a large beard you may not charge a fee to the end of clause 1. All of the occurences of this license in the GPL become occurences of this license in the virtual license that statement describes, and when they occur in the virtual license they refer to the virtual license, not to the original GPL. You probably don't want to ship a copy of your conditions with the program because if would probably be a violation of the FSF's copyright on most of that text. But you are certainly allowed to *reference* it, and as long as your users and the judge can figure out which rules you agree to be bound by it'll be legally OK. restrictions not authorized by the GPL is inconsistent with the GPL, and has the effect of not authorizing any further redistribution at all. No. A license based on the GPL does not need to be consistent with the original GPL at all. It just has to be *internally* consistent. Summary: if someone says You may distribute this under the GPL, except never to person X, then either - You may distribute it to someone under the pure GPL, No, since the author never allowed you to use the pure GPL, which is a different license than the one that applies to the program. -- Henning Makholm Jeg har skabt lammeskyer, piskeris, fingerspidsfornemmelser, polarkalotter, loddenhed, vantro, rutenet, skumtoppe, datid, halvdistancer, restoplag, gigt, pligtdanse, græsrødder, afdrift, bataljer, tyrepis, løvfald, sideblikke, hulrum, røjsere, mislyd, loppetjans, øer, synsrande...
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications: I might still have the right to make one modified copy of the work, but I don't have any right to copy that one copy further. No, you are still confused. The copy you have you may copy. And it contains a license which says that it applies to further copies. That is binding. The thing that is not binding is any implication about *other* copies made by the owner.
