Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[John Cowan]

Pamela Chestek scripsit:

> This is one of my favorite subjects, whether to have a license you need
> to know that it existed at the time you copied or not. I don't think so,
> the copyright owner put the work out there with a promise not to sue, so
> I don't know why I would need to be aware of the promise to claim the
> benefit of it.

On my view, of course, you don't need to know, because meeting of the minds
is a contract idea, and licenses are not contracts.  The license is a bit
more than a covenant not to sue, though: it's affirmative permission to
do things, not merely a promise (which may or may not rise to a contract)
not to try to punish the doers of those things.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
A male Jang appeared at my side.  "Get a grip on yourself," he said.
"Get a grip on your graks," I suggested.  --Tanith Lee, Drinking Sapphire Wine
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[John Cowan]

Pamela Chestek scripsit:

> Doesn't that mean that the word "irrevocable" is meaningless? We don't
> like words without meaning in contracts, especially one so central to
> the entire premise of free software.

It's my view (and I'm not alone in this) that the vast majority of free
software licenses are not contracts at all, and are like licenses to
enter upon land: that is, they are permissions by the owner to do things
that would otherwise be forbidden to all by the owner's proprietary rights
in the property.  As such, they are not supported by consideration and
can be revoked at the will of the licensor.  Most proprietary licenses
are not like this: the license is provided in exchange for obvious
consideration in the form of money paid by the licensee.

The licenses written by Larry truly are contracts, and are exempt from
this view of mine.

> Java BCL, anyone?

Who knows what secret source, or sauce, might underlie the current binary
releases of Java?  (The Shadow knows.)

IANA, TINLA, but this is not UPL either.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your ear.  However, I would
suggest you wash your hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.
--gadicath
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[Pamela Chestek]

On 9/8/2015 5:14 PM, Kevin Fleming wrote:
> The genesis of my statement (which I purposely left ambiguous because
> IANAL and IANYL and many here are) is that a set of source files that
> do not have any copyright/license statements included and a set that
> do have such statements included could easily be considered *different
> works*, because they contain different content. The content difference
> may be immaterial to the usage of the code (it certainly doesn't
> affect compilation or execution of the code), but it's still
> different. It might even be reasonable to claim that the version with
> the statements is a derivative work of the one without the statements,
> even if produced by the copyright holder(s).
Interesting theory. I would say not though, because the addition of the
copyright/license statements are not original enough to make the new
work with the addition or omission a derivative work, and also for the
reasons you mention, that they don't actually affect the work. It would
be like saying that a second edition, with new title page listing the
new year of publication and different publisher, would be a derivative
work of, or a different work from, the first edition. Without doing any
legal research (which is guaranteed to get me into trouble), my guess is
that courts have decided that insignificant changes don't make it a new
work.[1]
> Given that, if someone has a copy of the version without such
> statements, I'd personally recommend (and certainly do in my day job)
> that finding another copy elsewhere that has such statements is
> immaterial. This usually doesn't matter when the discussion occurs
> before any potentially infringing activity has occurred, since we can
> just tell the user to go download the copy with the license
> statements, but after the fact I'd be quite surprised that
> demonstrating the existence of the other copy would be sufficient.
This is one of my favorite subjects, whether to have a license you need
to know that it existed at the time you copied or not. I don't think so,
the copyright owner put the work out there with a promise not to sue, so
I don't know why I would need to be aware of the promise to claim the
benefit of it.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

[1] Ok, I lied. It rang a bell and I looked it up. Not quite on all
fours but in the recent Creative Commons case where the photographer
argued that cropping his photo created a derivative work, the court said
"Any discernible cropping appears to be 'so minor and insubstantial that
as a matter of law it falls within that degree of latitude afforded
licensees to alter a copyrighted work to suit their style or the medium
in which the work is presented.'" /Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC,/
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108992, *21 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2015).
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[Pamela Chestek]

On 9/6/2015 1:03 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
>
>> What non-GPL things are you talking about? 
> Insofar as I can reconstruct my thinking of last night (post in
> haste, repent at leisure), I was thinking of the ordinary proprietary
> opt-out clause letting you incorporate Yoyodyne's library into your
> binary-only program.  I suppose that Yoyodyne could require you to keep
> the proprietary-licensed copy to yourself, even though it's bit-for-bit
> identical with the GPLed version and has a common origin.
Well, since you can't (or don't want to) comply with the copyleft
provision, you can't rely on the FOSS license, so you have to comply
with whatever other license you can get, which may include not
disclosing the code. Although that seems kind of silly to require, since
the code is public.

>
>> But a more general GPL work available publicly (e.g., Linux) is and
>> remains under the GPL forever. 
> In my non-lawyer opinion, the irrevocability clause of GPL3 hasn't got a
> leg to stand on.  If I put up a sign on my land saying PUBLIC ACCESS
> PERMITTED and then take it down before prescription kicks in, the
> fact that the sign also said THIS SIGN WILL NOT BE TAKEN DOWN doesn't
> seem to help someone I sue for trespass, except through the exceedingly
> dodgy mechanism of equitable estoppel (or quasi-contract in Roman lands).
> Doubtless if they were actually in transit when I revoked the permission
Doesn't that mean that the word "irrevocable" is meaningless? We don't
like words without meaning in contracts, especially one so central to
the entire premise of free software.

>
>> It becomes confusing when a company adds *incompatible* proprietary
>> terms to the GPL for a publicly available work. Is this a contract that
>> any company can negotiate with its customers? Is that ever effective
>> at restricting GPL freedoms?
> I admit that such a thing is economically improbable, but I don't see what
> grounds a court would have for treating it as voidable, never mind void.
> (I'm assuming that any contract under the GPL only kicks in when you
> exploit a GPL right; otherwise the pre-announced GPL would be superseded
> by the proprietary contract anyway.)
If you're not getting any benefit not already available under the GPL
then I would argue the proprietary contract is void for lack of
consideration.

>
>> But I'd also try to avoid *contractual* litigation by never agreeing
>> to *restrictive* proprietary contracts for GPL software. Don't contract
>> away your free software. I've never seen anyone actually try to do that,
>> which is why I'm confused by John Cowan's comment.
> I haven't heard of it either, but that may only be only because people
> don't usually announce that they've been snookered.
Java BCL, anyone?

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[Pamela Chestek]

On 9/5/2015 2:24 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Pamela Chestek scripsit:
>
>> I think this statement is a fallacy, but I'm happy to hear other
>> opinions. A license attaches to the intangible copyright, not to the
>> tangible copy of the work you received. So as long as I can show that
>> the same copyrighted work was available under a license, and that I am
>> in compliance with the license, then I am a licensed user no matter
>> where I got my copy of the work. 
> That can't be right.  Consider a work available under GPL+proprietary
> terms, where you get to do non-GPL things if you have paid.  Then it would
> not be enough to show that the work was available under a proprietary
> license to allow you to download it and do those things.
>
Sure I could, if it was a license that was offered to me and I complied
with the terms (including paying); my performance manifested my
acceptance of the offer. Same with a FOSS license, it is an offer and I
accept through performance.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Source code distribution for web application dual licensed under GNU GPL Affero Public License? [closed]

[Kevin Fleming]

The statement 'dual licensed' is illogical here, as only only license is
named (AGPLv3). Since the only license named is the AGPLv3, you'll need to
abide by its terms and obligations, as would anyone who receives a copy of
the software from you. Generally speaking, anyone who is given access to
use the functionality of the web application should be offered a copy of
the source code, as the license indicates.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Umair  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> I am customising a web application which is dual licensed under GNU GPL
> Affero Public License Version 3.0, see below;
>
>
> github.com/telerim/old-Zhen-CRM/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Do my customers need to include link to source code for the modified web
> application they have purchased from me?
> [image: Umair Khokhar]
>  Umair Khokhar   
> Chief
> Technology Officer
>   Tezro Solutions Website  Email
> 
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] Source code distribution for web application dual licensed under GNU GPL Affero Public License? [closed]

[Umair]

Hi Folks,

I am customising a web application which is dual licensed under GNU GPL Affero 
Public License Version 3.0, see below;



github.com/telerim/old-Zhen-CRM/blob/master/LICENSE 
 

Do my customers need to include link to source code for the modified web 
application they have purchased from me? 

 
 
      
  
 
 
Umair Khokhar
 
Chief Technology Officer 
 
Tezro Solutions
 
 
Website  Email 

 
 
 
 
 
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss