Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one can, at least within a single country. I didn't see anyone else respond to this -- did I miss something? Is this your reference? (from Version 2, June 1991) quote 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. /quote I guess it could be interpreted as you say, but really it seems like your statement almost reverses the meaning. If one person in a country cannot receive and distribute for some reason other than by patents or by copyrighted interfaces (say because they are restricted as a felon), there does not appear to be a restriction on anyone else in that country. Am I missing something? Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Ian Jackson scripsit: Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it's impossible. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable' only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's authors, who consider this property desirable. Very well. Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. = Isn't there some way to avoid this daffy butterslide to Hell? -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out. He wasn't home. Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us. He no show up. Wednesday he go to the ball game, and we fool him. We no show up. Thursday was a double-header. Nobody show up. Friday it rained all day. There was no ball game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio. --Chicolini -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
John Cowan wrote: Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Does that mean others are forbidden from *giving* them software, or they violate their parole if they _receive_ software? In other words, who goes to jail if those persons end up with software in violation of that condition? Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. The restriction of distribution would apply to the person on parole, not to the rest of the world. If 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. So the rest of the world can keep on distributing. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL): Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it's impossible. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable' only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's authors, who consider this property desirable. Ian. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible. But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed to practice patent P royalty-free (etc. etc.) except for the notorious Richard Stallman. Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it is. The same would be true if John Cowan were substituted for Richard Stallman. Free for everyone except you is not free software and is not allowed by the GPL. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
John Cowan said on Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:01AM -0500,: Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot, and does not seek to override the law. You need to clarify what you mean by `distribution of GNU s/w to them is forbidden by law'. Can I still give them non-free (or did you mean non-gnu-but-free?) software? The next part of your question, `... and if they do happen to have GNU s/o on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it.' GPL does not really apply in most jurisdictions* if a person does not want to redistribute the software. * I think that in some jurisdictions, the users cannot modify software for their own use. AFAIK. Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the rule is this:- Statement 1:- X implies Y Statement 2:- Y implies Z Statement 1 and 2 does not mean that X implies Z. It would have been different if the statements *both* were *is* instead of implies. It does not help if the 2nd statement alone was `implies'. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the rule is this:- Statement 1:- X implies Y Statement 2:- Y implies Z Statement 1 and 2 does not mean that X implies Z. AFAIK, it does under normal/traditional logic laws. Implication is transitive: If X implies Y and Y implies Z, then X implies Z. However, my understanding is that there is no consensus on this list that X implies Y or that Y implies Z. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit: That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot, and does not seek to override the law. But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one can, at least within a single country. You need to clarify what you mean by `distribution of GNU s/w to them is forbidden by law'. Can I still give them non-free (or did you mean non-gnu-but-free?) software? No. The next part of your question, `... and if they do happen to have GNU s/o on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it.' GPL does not really apply in most jurisdictions* if a person does not want to redistribute the software. But the GPL is intended to guarantee that any recipient has the same rights as any sender. A person thus constrained doesn't have those rights. * I think that in some jurisdictions, the users cannot modify software for their own use. AFAIK. The U.S. right to do so is very narrow: it can be done only (a) in order to make the software to run on a machine of a type other than that it was originally intended for, or (b) for archival purposes. See 17 U.S.C. 117. -- Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [EMAIL PROTECTED] it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software because of patent restrictions. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Bjorn Reese wrote: On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software because of patent restrictions. Section 7 of the GPL is not just about patents. The first sentence contains If, ... for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you... But I had always interpreted this clause to only apply to _me_ as licensee. It shouldn't matter to me that there is someone else who cannot satisfy simultaneously [his] obligations under [the GPL]. Bill Gates could contract with Steve Ballmer that he will not ever distribute GPL-licensed software. Surely that couldn't have the consequence that *I* can no longer distribute that software? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
A private mail drew to my attention the following sentence in Section 7 of the GPLv2: For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by *all* those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. (Emphasis added.) Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible. But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed to practice patent P royalty-free (etc. etc.) except for the notorious Richard Stallman. Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me, without doubt; but is the presence of a single legal disability in a whole nation (and it doesn't have to be patent-based; any kind of disability will do) grounds to withhold free software from the rest? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Yes, its distribution is still impossible. The GPL preserves its generality through the generality of the provenance of copyright. Various licenses may assert all manner of things, but the principled position of the GPL inherently applies in this case. (Or so I would say by way of taking a stab at this question. I hope I've managed to express the idea well.) Seth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:48:55 -0500 Subject: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL A private mail drew to my attention the following sentence in Section 7 of the GPLv2: For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by *all* those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. (Emphasis added.) Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible. But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed to practice patent P royalty-free (etc. etc.) except for the notorious Richard Stallman. Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me, without doubt; but is the presence of a single legal disability in a whole nation (and it doesn't have to be patent-based; any kind of disability will do) grounds to withhold free software from the rest? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
