Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Agreed. The APSL1, the RPL and several other licenses are clearly in violation of the DFSG (and you all know where the OSD comes from). It just seems though that the so-called 'official' definition of 'open source' (OSI) is quite well known, but irrelevant. Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g. the OSL's assent provision). andrew On 1/9/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:41:39PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php Which is why OSI has become more or less irrelevant these days (as compared to their old state of mostly irrelevant). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDwf+mlpK98RSteX8RApkHAJ9dLPxrKlh5F91G90cCmwiiFTP9GQCeKFGJ Y55KfqAx1V0Q9h23tFSx2c4= =0Bty -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/9/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g. the OSL's assent provision). Yeah, right. Assent is not needed in the GNU Republic where first sale is nonexistent, IP is not property, and where distributing software under any agreement other than the GPL (hint: it's not a contract or a property right in the GNU Republic) or GPL compatible agreement (but that's for extra regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law. regards, alexander. P.S. http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL19.pdf P.P.S. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/8/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license. Who cares about your bet... but free as in what, BTW? regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc. I think anyway... Andrew On 1/9/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/8/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license. Who cares about your bet... but free as in what, BTW? regards, alexander. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:41:39PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php Which is why OSI has become more or less irrelevant these days (as compared to their old state of mostly irrelevant). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The obvious conclusion one would draw from this is that there are no competitors to Linux or, at least, that all the existing ones are quickly being killed off. However, a quick examination of reality shows this not to be the case. It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act to succeed. Every mention of a uncharged co-conspirator is hillarious as well. Perhaps because you don't understand what it means as well. It means uncharged parties which entered into GPL agreement and performed accordingly. regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf I would like to take a moment to predict that this event will not transpire. FWIW, I read Alexander's message as a vaguely amusing troll, given its tone and irrelevance. Feeds the trolls if you like, though. :) Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html): http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/0e12f3571b78d7bd In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what's the point of and distribute? As an owner of a copy lawfully made I'm free to distribute it. US copyright statute, chapter 1, section 106(1) and (3) defines copying and distrubution as separate exclusive rights. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 I don't know why these rights are listed separately either, but it seems prudent that if you want to grant both rights you should be explicit about it, rather than assuming right (1) implies right (3). Because it was felt that both somebody who reproduces works but does not distribute them to the public, and somebody who distributes works to the public that were reproduced by another, should both be infringers? As for the reproduction right (1) implying the distribution right (3), it's not an implication, but a special rule in United States copyright law spelled out in Section 109. (It is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in the statute and not some lay reading of first, sale, or even first sale.) The heart of the provision is its first sentence: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. But it goes on to state exceptions to this rule (primarily for the rental of phonorecords and software) and exceptions to these exceptions, not part of the original Copyright Act of 1976. But if one has permission to make lawful copies, one does not need any additional permission to distribute those copies to the public. The Copyright Office has noted an interesting potential quirk in the way this provision is worded. The test is whether the copy was lawfully MADE indicating that we look only to the time of the creation of a copy to determine whether this provision applies. The Supreme Court said in the Sony Betamax decision that copies of TV programs made for purposes of time-shifting were lawfully made because they were a fair use. Can those copies then be sold under the rule of Section 109? Note that the GPL does not acknowledge Section 109 when it states However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. It also ignores Section 117 when, which gives the owner of a copy of a computer program the right to make or authorize the making of another copy OR ADAPTATION of that computer program if it is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine. As for Eben Moglen's assertion that Licenses are not contracts in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html (previously cited), he offers little justification for the statement: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. In light of Sections 109 and 117 (and possibly other exceptions), that statement is wrong with respect to United States copyright law. Just look at the wording of Section 109 -- is entitled, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
And one more.. On 1/7/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf I would like to take a moment to predict that this event will not transpire. FWIW, I read Alexander's message as a vaguely amusing troll, given its tone and irrelevance. Feeds the trolls if you like, though. :) Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html): http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/0e12f3571b78d7bd In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what's the point of and distribute? As an owner of a copy lawfully made I'm free to distribute it. US copyright statute, chapter 1, section 106(1) and (3) defines copying and distrubution as separate exclusive rights. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 I don't know why these rights are listed separately either, but it seems prudent that if you want to grant both rights you should be explicit about it, rather than assuming right (1) implies right (3). Because it was felt that both somebody who reproduces works but does not distribute them to the public, and somebody who distributes works to the public that were reproduced by another, should both be infringers? As for the reproduction right (1) implying the distribution right (3), it's not an implication, but a special rule in United States copyright law spelled out in Section 109. (It is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in the statute and not some lay reading of first, sale, or even first sale.) The heart of the provision is its first sentence: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. But it goes on to state exceptions to this rule (primarily for the rental of phonorecords and software) and exceptions to these exceptions, not part of the original Copyright Act of 1976. But if one has permission to make lawful copies, one does not need any additional permission to distribute those copies to the public. The Copyright Office has noted an interesting potential quirk in the way this provision is worded. The test is whether the copy was lawfully MADE indicating that we look only to the time of the creation of a copy to determine whether this provision applies. The Supreme Court said in the Sony Betamax decision that copies of TV programs made for purposes of time-shifting were lawfully made because they were a fair use. Can those copies then be sold under the rule of Section 109? Note that the GPL does not acknowledge Section 109 when it states However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. It also ignores Section 117 when, which gives the owner of a copy of a computer program the right to make or authorize the making of another copy OR ADAPTATION of that computer program if it is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine. As for Eben Moglen's assertion that Licenses are not contracts in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html (previously cited), he offers little justification for the statement: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. In light of Sections 109 and 117 (and possibly other exceptions), that statement is wrong with respect to United States copyright law. Just look at the wording of Section 109 -- is entitled, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/3905731f0a55c489 One can tie oneself in knots trying to make sense of the GPL and the statements made about it. It ignores provisions of the copyright statutes that allow the modification or redistribution of works without permission of the copyright owner. It talks about derived works which don't seem to be the same as derivative
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Alexander Terekhov wrote: It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act to succeed. Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his fourth amended complaint soon enough. Every mention of a uncharged co-conspirator is hillarious as well. Perhaps because you don't understand what it means as well. I understand what it means, and that's why I find it hillarious. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html): I think if you want to suggest to the FSF that the language [h]owever, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works should be changed (or struck entirely), that'd be a perfectly reasonable suggestion. It can also be quite untrue in the case of a dual-licenced work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop. I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/ real-stuff-like-that. regards, alexander. P.S. http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html quote Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses with his own, but in his Chapter 6: Reciprocity and the GPL, he makes many observations, including: 1) The FSF's refusal of outside improvements to the GPL and its denunciation of them as restrictions handicaps the GPL in the courts: Their avoidance of restrictions has delayed the adoption of new and useful licensing concepts for open source software. (p. 106). These restrictions are actually items such as clear grants of patent licenses and the like. 2) The FSF language about software containing GPL'd software tries to turn collective works into derivative works, and is contrary to the usual practice of copyright law (p. 114). 3) Further instances of unclear language that vary from simply untrue (the GPL mandate that you must give the recipients all the rights that you have, says Rosen, is unnecessarily frightening and is not true-- because you still have the right to give the work to others, p. 111) to inept (the provisions for linking to LGPL'd code is an impenetrable maze of technobabble, p. 124). 4) The FSF's ideas about linking to GPL'd software (see 2) and 3) above) conflict with copyright law and practice to the extent that there is no need for the LGPL because a user who does not modify a GPL'd work of software, but simply incorporates it into a collective work and distributes it, is well within copyright law. This means, simply, that one can link to GPL'd software and distribute the collective work. If the software has a use, simply using it is permitted under copyright law. The problems resulting from the FSF's unwillingness or inability to bring their GPL/LGPL licensing into conformity with copyright law, and with modern software licensing practice under that law, will lead it into eventual disrepute. So far the FSF has been scrupulous about avoiding court, relying on quiet persuasion that moves over to loud public indignation and pressure on the infringer from many quarters, and it has been successful so far. But its reputation for ferocious fanaticism frightens away not only those who would abuse the GPL, but also those who can't come to terms with the FSF's interpretation of its licenses. By holding the opinion that a collective work is actually a derivative work (and therefore violates the GPL) the FSF invites gradual and then wholesale violations of the GPL, and increasing difficulty in determining which cases will be defensible and which will have to be ignored in order not to expose the FSF's interpretations to adjudication. In cases in which the FSF is not the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing in court, the actual copyright holders will have to reach the same decision about bringing an infringement suit. The worst case would be that of distributing binary-only software linked to unmodified GPL'd software. A good prediction of the outcome would be that the GPL will be found invalid in some way. First, for its ambiguities: courts decide in favor of licensees if the licensor has not written a clear license. Second, for its clear misinterpretations of copyright law. Rosen believes that the courts will favor the GPL's restrictions on derivative works, but not on collective works. Beyond this fairly clear risk is any additional court finding concerning the GPL, for no one ever really knows what a court will decide. In any case the GPL will have been exposed as a paper tiger, the result of a too-wide stretching to achieve the death of proprietary software. No one in the Open Source world wants a public and legal repudiation of an archetypal Open Source license. The sensible thing would be for the FSF to adopt Rosen's Open Source License, and for everyone who has put out software under the GPL to relicense it under the OSL. /quote
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe millions of them. And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the sections of the copyright act you have quoted allow you to copy for lawful purposes, and to sell your original copy *on the condition that you dispose of it*. Only the GPL gives you the right to sell copies *you* have made. andrew On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop. I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/ real-stuff-like-that. regards, alexander. P.S. http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html quote Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses with his own, but in his Chapter 6: Reciprocity and the GPL, he makes many observations, including: 1) The FSF's refusal of outside improvements to the GPL and its denunciation of them as restrictions handicaps the GPL in the courts: Their avoidance of restrictions has delayed the adoption of new and useful licensing concepts for open source software. (p. 106). These restrictions are actually items such as clear grants of patent licenses and the like. 2) The FSF language about software containing GPL'd software tries to turn collective works into derivative works, and is contrary to the usual practice of copyright law (p. 114). 3) Further instances of unclear language that vary from simply untrue (the GPL mandate that you must give the recipients all the rights that you have, says Rosen, is unnecessarily frightening and is not true-- because you still have the right to give the work to others, p. 111) to inept (the provisions for linking to LGPL'd code is an impenetrable maze of technobabble, p. 124). 4) The FSF's ideas about linking to GPL'd software (see 2) and 3) above) conflict with copyright law and practice to the extent that there is no need for the LGPL because a user who does not modify a GPL'd work of software, but simply incorporates it into a collective work and distributes it, is well within copyright law. This means, simply, that one can link to GPL'd software and distribute the collective work. If the software has a use, simply using it is permitted under copyright law. The problems resulting from the FSF's unwillingness or inability to bring their GPL/LGPL licensing into conformity with copyright law, and with modern software licensing practice under that law, will lead it into eventual disrepute. So far the FSF has been scrupulous about avoiding court, relying on quiet persuasion that moves over to loud public indignation and pressure on the infringer from many quarters, and it has been successful so far. But its reputation for ferocious fanaticism frightens away not only those who would abuse the GPL, but also those who can't come to terms with the FSF's interpretation of its licenses. By holding the opinion that a collective work is actually a derivative work (and therefore violates the GPL) the FSF invites gradual and then wholesale violations of the GPL, and increasing difficulty in determining which cases will be defensible and which will have to be ignored in order not to expose the FSF's interpretations to adjudication. In cases in which the FSF is not the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing in court, the actual copyright holders will have to reach the same decision about bringing an infringement suit. The worst case would be that of distributing binary-only software linked to unmodified GPL'd software. A good prediction of the outcome would be that the GPL will be found invalid in some way. First, for its ambiguities: courts decide in favor of licensees if the licensor has not written a clear license. Second, for its clear misinterpretations of copyright law. Rosen believes that the courts will favor the GPL's restrictions on derivative works, but not on collective works. Beyond this fairly clear risk is any additional court finding concerning the GPL, for no one ever really knows what a court will decide. In any case the GPL will have been exposed as a paper tiger, the result of a too-wide stretching to achieve the death of proprietary software. No one in the Open Source world wants a public and legal repudiation of an archetypal Open Source license. The sensible thing would be for the FSF to adopt Rosen's Open Source License, and for everyone who has put out software under the GPL to relicense it under the OSL. /quote -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user -
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe millions of them. If they don't mind quasi public domain... which is even better as far as I'm concerned. And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the sections of the copyright act you have quoted allow you to copy for lawful purposes, and to sell your original copy *on the condition that you dispose of it*. What original copy and the condition are you talking about? In order to sell/dispose/distribute (as I see fit), I only have to be the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under copyright law. 17 USC 109. A copy can be lawfully made if it is made by the copyright owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (explicit or implicit), or made under one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Only the GPL gives you the right to sell copies *you* have made. That may be true in the GNU Republic. How's the weather over there? regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe millions of them. If they don't mind quasi public domain... which is even better as far as I'm concerned. And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the sections of the copyright act you have quoted allow you to copy for lawful purposes, and to sell your original copy *on the condition that you dispose of it*. What original copy and the condition are you talking about? In order to sell/dispose/distribute (as I see fit), I only have to be the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under copyright law. 17 USC 109. A copy can be lawfully made if it is made by the copyright owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (explicit or And that's what the GPL gives you. implicit), or made under one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Only the GPL gives you the right to sell copies *you* have made. That may be true in the GNU Republic. How's the weather over there? Quite good. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe millions of them. If they don't mind quasi public domain... which is even better as far as I'm concerned. And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the sections of the copyright act you have quoted allow you to copy for lawful purposes, and to sell your original copy *on the condition that you dispose of it*. What original copy and the condition are you talking about? In order to sell/dispose/distribute (as I see fit), I only have to be the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under copyright law. 17 USC 109. A copy can be lawfully made if it is made by the copyright owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (explicit or And that's what the GPL gives you. Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. However, the law only gives you the right to sell and *dispose* the work, e.g. selling a book. The law was not originally designed with software in mind. So if you do not accept the GPL, then you can give a copy of the program to me, but you will have to delete all of your own copies. This discussion is quite irrelevant - Alexander, if you have any problems with the GPL that you want to be fixed, ask for them to be discussed at the GPL3 conference. That's what it's for. andrew regards, alexander. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. However, the law only gives you the right to sell and *dispose* the work, e.g. selling a book. The law was not originally designed with software in mind. So if you do not accept the GPL, then you can give a copy of the program to me, but you will have to delete all of your own copies. Brrr. That's yet another GNU law, I suppose. This discussion is quite irrelevant - Alexander, if you have any problems with the GPL that you want to be fixed, ask for them to be discussed at the GPL3 conference. That's what it's for. The whole process is a PR thing and a tool for advancing rather silly political agenda. Nothing more. regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
* Alexander Terekhov: Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. Sure, some parts of the GPL are highly questionable (especially the termination clause). But according to the usual interpretation of copyright law, you are still not allowed to distribute modified copies of a computer program, even if the original copy was obtain legally from the copyright holder. As a result, copyleft still works. (Some copyright owners even claim that changing their works in any way is not allowed, but most countries recognize some kind of right to patch.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Alexander Terekhov: Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. Sure, some parts of the GPL are highly questionable (especially the termination clause). But according to the usual interpretation of copyright law, you are still not allowed to distribute modified copies of a computer program, even if the original copy was obtain legally from the copyright holder. That's because absent a permission to prepare derivative works, modifications fall under restricted adaptations under 17 USC 117 (presuming they are done within its scope). But once you've got a permission to prepare derivative works... it's then the same as with exact copies -- thank you for your not-a-contract/no-promises- made-in-exchange unilateral permission to prepare derivative works and make copies, now it's time for 17 USC 109, dear Prof. Moglen. regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the Netfilter case. Please quote some actual court rulings then I'll consider believing you. Can we get on to discussing the real GPLv3 issues now? Andrew On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Alexander Terekhov: Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. Sure, some parts of the GPL are highly questionable (especially the termination clause). But according to the usual interpretation of copyright law, you are still not allowed to distribute modified copies of a computer program, even if the original copy was obtain legally from the copyright holder. That's because absent a permission to prepare derivative works, modifications fall under restricted adaptations under 17 USC 117 (presuming they are done within its scope). But once you've got a permission to prepare derivative works... it's then the same as with exact copies -- thank you for your not-a-contract/no-promises- made-in-exchange unilateral permission to prepare derivative works and make copies, now it's time for 17 USC 109, dear Prof. Moglen. regards, alexander. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the Netfilter case. Oh yeah, It's a Small Welte. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) doesn't really upheld anything, to begin with. http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html quote It's a Small Welte After All Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router until it complied with the GPL. /quote Well, the injunction was about netfilter/iptables code and nothing else. No word about the router. http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117 quote Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, /quote Sitecom's objection (not really appeal) to the injunction had really nothing to do with the GPL. And the subsequent ruling by the same district court discussing the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney) was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside for a moment. quote and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results. Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) /quote And here's some feedback from Appellate Judge (Court of Appeal of Dusseldorf, Copyright Senate), Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Muenster, Member of Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Law, European Commission, and etc. etc. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf quote 1. The decision of the District Court of Munich is celebrated as the first-ever judgement on the validity of the GPL. That is surprising. The decision is the judgement of only a single district court in Germany. And it is only a summary and preliminary decision based on injunctive remedies. Furthermore, the judgement refers to only one special case within the Open Source scene. There was only one main developer involved in this project, so there was no need to decide, for example, on the complicated questions of rights ownership involved in Linux. 2. Given the high importance that the Open Source community attributed to the judgement, the Court's legal arguments are extremely poor. I do not want to deal with the many spelling and grammatical mistakes in the original version of the decision; such things happen in the heat of the moment. But it is even more astonishing that most of the relevant legal literature has not been considered. The Court essentially refers only to an essay from Metzger/Jäger written in 1999, apart from two essays from Omsels and Plaß. None of the critical voices about the effectiveness of the GPL have been heard. 3. Apart from these formalities, the argumentation of the judges raises many questions and prompts many criticisms. a. The homepage of the plaintiff included a link to the GPL version 2 (June 1991), an American document of the FSF. However, the US version of the GPL was not considered by the Court. Instead the Court used an unofficial German translation without devoting even a single sentence to justifying this approach. The judges also did not mention the history of the GPL, nor did they ask how the GPL might be interpreted under US rules on the interpretation of contractual documents. They simply applied German methodology and concepts to a document whose legal roots are deeply intermingled with US law and the US Open Source mentality. b. The court interpreted the GPL in the light of the German model of condition subsequent based upon Sect. 158 of the German Civil Act (BGB). The court argued that infringements of the GPL would lead to an automatic loss of rights, based upon a condition subsequent. The user of open source products gets the license to use the product only on the condition that, and as long as, he sticks to the rules of the GPL. The Court held that this extremely tight link between the use right and the GPL would not prevent
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Could you PLEASE take this off-topic trolling to some appropriate forum, and leave debian-legal for discussions that directly affect Debian? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:31:45 -0500 Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader wrote: Howdy legal mavens, Hi! :) Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January. That's really good news, as I hope you'll be able to bring Debian concerns and desires to FSF's attention... [...] To that end, I want to be as good a representative as I can be of the Debian Project's views on the GPL -- what's good about it, what's not so good, and what we'd like to see in a future revision. I have therefore created a page on our Wiki where our developers and users can share there thoughts[3]. [...] Please take the time to visit http://wiki.debian.org/GPL_v3_Launch_Comments in the next week or so and share your ideas. [...] Since I do not have a Debian wiki account, I would like to comment here about the GNU GPL version 2. * What are the current GPL's strengths? Its general structure, main goals and spirit. Many implementation details (see below). * What are the current GPL's deficiencies? Some US-centric phrasing which makes it a little less easy to apply in other jurisdictions. Some implementation details (see below). * Are there significant threats to software freedom that the current GPL does not address? Probably, but, IMHO, they cannot be successfully addressed by a license. For instance, we cannot use a license to nuke software patents: we can take them into account in the license text (as the GPLv2 already does), but only political lobbying and public protests will be able to make them history. * Should a new GPL attempt to explicitly broaden its applicability to works other than computer programs (e.g., image, sound, or music files; documentation; dictionaries; encyclopedias)? I think so. But very few changes are required, IMHO. First of all, the term Program is defined in clause 0 as any program or other work which contains a notice [...]. This is misleading and actually confuses many many people into thinking the GPL can only be applied to computer programs. They read Program and say Look! The GPL is obviously not suitable for works that are not computer programs!. A more neutral term (such as Work) would help clarify that the GPL *can* be applied to works of authorship that are not (obviously) computer programs. Another area where some improvement is possibly needed is public performance and broadcast rights. These are, AFAICT, exclusive rights of the copyright holder which are relevant for several non-programs (such as music files, novels, poems, movies, ...). They are not mentioned in the GPLv2 text, AFAICS, and thus no permission is granted in this area (or am I wrong?). Clause 0 states, in part, Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Does it mean I have no permission to broadcast, unless a separate grant is provided? This should be discussed and some clause could turn up to be needed in order to grant permission to do things such as streaming an Ogg-Vorbis-encoded GPL'd song through an Internet radio. * What parts of the GPL are difficult to understand? None... ...once you've read the text for the tenth time or more!!! ^__^ * What part of the current GPL would you most like to see preserved as-is? Clause 1, which seems to be fine. Clause 3a, which requires machine-readable source code (for instance source printed on paper is not useful in most cases) and use of common software interchange mechanisms. The definition of source code (found in clause 3), which is the best such definition I'm aware of. Clause 9 is very relevant in these days! :) I think that two key features are important enough to be preserved as they are: first, Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version (I hope the FSF are going to keep their promise!), secondly, the fact that the license version is not automatically upgradeable, but only if the copyright holder so decides (IOW, I would like to be able to license under GPLv3 only, if I want to). * What part of the current GPL would you most like to see changed? The preamble, despite being well-phrased, is unmodifiable. I don't like unmodifiable parts, even in a license. This is not a Freeness issue for works licensed under the GPL, but rather a Freeness issue for the GPL text itself. Thus it's a secondary issue, but noteworthy anyway IMHO. Clause 0 defines a work based on the Program as either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. Then tries to restate this definition by expanding what derivative work is supposed to mean under copyright law. This is troublesome, since in the opinion of several people with legal expertise, the restatement is flawed and fails to actually mean the same as the real definition. Moreover, what is actually a derivative work under copyright law is subject to change in time (laws
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:53:23AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. However, the law only gives you the right to sell and *dispose* the work, e.g. selling a book. The law was not originally designed with software in mind. So if you do not accept the GPL, then you can give a copy of the program to me, but you will have to delete all of your own copies. This discussion is quite irrelevant Yes. Can y'all stop feeding the troll (kook) now, please? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:20:02PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop. I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/ real-stuff-like-that. I suggest you dig a hole and die in it. Really. If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Alexander Terekhov wrote: The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf I would like to take a moment to predict that this event will not transpire. Though this brief is rather funny to read. For example, (re-typing due to it being a damned image), page 8 reads in part: If we exam [sic] case (i) 'pricing below the level necessary to sell their products' the obvious result of the GPL is the destruction of interbrand competition, since no rival competitor can remain viable by vending his product (intellectual property) at a total loss. New developers and competitors cannot enter a market for which there is no incentive or reward. The obvious conclusion one would draw from this is that there are no competitors to Linux or, at least, that all the existing ones are quickly being killed off. However, a quick examination of reality shows this not to be the case. Every mention of a uncharged co-conspirator is hillarious as well. I assume that, say, IBM's attourneys would pound him into the ground and then force him to pay for the hammer. [Like they will no doubt do in his other case] His claim of rending part of the constitution meaningless (end of p9, very beginning of p10) is pretty good, too. Lastly, don't you think that that were there ANY validity to these points that a large, well-known operating systems vendor located in Washington state would be pursuing them, with its far larger legal budget? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf I would like to take a moment to predict that this event will not transpire. FWIW, I read Alexander's message as a vaguely amusing troll, given its tone and irrelevance. Feeds the trolls if you like, though. :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf regards, alexander.
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
quote who=Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader date=Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:37:47PM -0500 Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January. I'll be there as well and will be happy to represent and communicate Debian's questions and comments as well. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference [OT]
Alexander Terekhov wrote: The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf (first, obligatory IANAL) I think this is unlikely, given that the plaintiff's claim there is based on a false assertion. Quoted from your cited document, page 4: [begin quote] The GPL term 2(b) also fixes the maximum price at no charge for the market value of a derivative or collective computer program thus created by the pooled code. All future third parties who accept the GPL copyright license must distribute their collaborative creations at no charge. [end quote] This is not true. 2(b) says that you must *license* work you derive from GPL'ed material and distribute for free, but section 1 specifically says You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. There is no limit specified on the fee that may be charged. Those interested in this case may note that this is the plaintiff's *fourth* amendment of his original complaint; the judge dismissed his third amended complaint without prejudice here: http://www.internetcases.com/library/cases/2005-11-28_wallace_v_fsf.pdf Some more references are available from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff) -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference [OT]
On 1/5/06, Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway (antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf (first, obligatory IANAL) I think this is unlikely, given that the plaintiff's claim there is based on a false assertion. It might sound false to you but only if you take it out of context which is cost of intellectual property and not cost of media, warranty, or whatnot. To quote the FSF's own brief (#35): By facilitating the development and distribution of software to consumers at no cost other than the cost of the media on which it is distributed, the GNU General Public License (GPL) ... violaties the antitrust laws. And even OSI knows it. The general counsel for the Open Source Initiative acknowledges in his recent treatise: There is also a problem that may prevent enforcement of the GPL's at no charge provision. It may be an illegal restraint of trade in some countries. Ordinarily, companies are allowed to set their own prices, and it is improper for a GPL licensor to restrain that in anyway. L. Rosen, Open Source Licensing 132 (2004), http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf regards, alexander.
