Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Måns Rullgård wrote: It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving three programs, A, B and C. Scenario 1: 1. A is written. 2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative work of A. 3. C is written, and is compatible with A. B is clearly not a derivative work of C, since it existed before C. Scenario 2: 1. A is written. 2. C is written, and is compatible with A. C is not a derivative work of A. If it were, most of the GNU programs would be illegal, since they would be derivative works of non-free compatible programs. 3. B is written, and makes use of the interface shared between A and C. In the second scenario, if B is a derivative work of A, it must also be a derivative work of C, since A and C are equivalent. This conflicts with scenario 1, where B cannot possibly be a derivative work of C. In both cases, we have in the end an identical set of programs, and the derivedness relations between them must also be equal. The only solution is that B is not derived from either A or C. AFAIK, as B uses A, B depends on A. At runtime, B cannot depend on A and C at the same time. So if B is distributed to be run with A that is GPL, B must be distributed under GPL terms. I don't know if in this case B is legally a derivative work of A but the dependency seems to be enough to spread A's GPL license to B. But IANAL ;) -- Jonathan ILIAS
Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Jonathan ILIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Måns Rullgård wrote: It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving three programs, A, B and C. Scenario 1: 1. A is written. 2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative work of A. 3. C is written, and is compatible with A. B is clearly not a derivative work of C, since it existed before C. Scenario 2: 1. A is written. 2. C is written, and is compatible with A. C is not a derivative work of A. If it were, most of the GNU programs would be illegal, since they would be derivative works of non-free compatible programs. 3. B is written, and makes use of the interface shared between A and C. In the second scenario, if B is a derivative work of A, it must also be a derivative work of C, since A and C are equivalent. This conflicts with scenario 1, where B cannot possibly be a derivative work of C. In both cases, we have in the end an identical set of programs, and the derivedness relations between them must also be equal. The only solution is that B is not derived from either A or C. AFAIK, as B uses A, B depends on A. At runtime, B cannot depend on A and C at the same time. So if B is distributed to be run with A that is GPL, B must be distributed under GPL terms. At runtime, B depends on something that can be provided by A or C, it does not care which. Just like make depends on /bin/sh, not asking whether your sh is Bash, Solaris sh, or some other sh. They are all equivalent, and make isn't derived from either of them. I don't know if in this case B is legally a derivative work of A but the dependency seems to be enough to spread A's GPL license to B. Licenses do not spread across interfaces. If they did, virtually every computer program would be illegal. If you are indeed right, I will immediately install BSD or Solaris on my machines, even though many of the GNU tools are better. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL and command-line libraries
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: 4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice. Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead? -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: 4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice. Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead? s/instead/, too/ Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?
Glenn Maynard scripsit: You were previously talking about contradicting the AFL, though. Are there actually any cases of this, or is it a practically null set? Well, I can invent really stoopid licenses that do it, like this: Alice licenses Yoyo under the AFL; Bob adds his changes, and licenses it under a license that says If anything goes wrong or you lose money with this code, you must sue Alice and not me. But absent that sort of nonsense, I think the set is practically null. This isn't the same as you claiming you'll give me something, not doing so and me suing for it; there's nothing I need to enforce, you're just giving up your right for me to not distribute your work. It's you (the licensor) that's doing the enforcing, here: you've granted me permission to do something normally prohibited by copyright law. Sorry, I don't follow this. How is enforcement involved here? Turn it around: what is there about your license that might make it revocable? Is there anything in the law that suggests this, that one could point the FSF at: this looks like a problem; is it? Given the vague this might be a problem, but I don't really know, it's hard to even formulate a decent question. (If we had one, we could try asking the FSF--asking Eben Moglen directly isn't the right thing to do, anyway--but this is still so vague I wouldn't know what to ask.) The AFL can't be revocable at will because it's a binding contract. It binds both sides, technically, but only the licensor has made any promises. The GPL isn't a contract, everyone agrees on that. So how can the licensor be bound by it? If EvilCo buys the copyright of Alice's GPLed Hummity software, they can announce No more GPL on Hummity and then sue, say, Bob, who has copied, distributed, or modified after hearing (actually or constructively) about the announcement. What possible legal theory does Bob have to defend himself from the charge of infringement? I sure don't see any. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law! -- one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools
Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: Sorry, I don't follow this. How is enforcement involved here? The example you gave showed a case where you've been promised something and not given it, and you can't sue to get it. The copyright license case is different, since there's nothing in that promise that the licensee might not actually be given that he needs to initiate legal action to obtain. The GPL isn't a contract, everyone agrees on that. So how can the licensor be bound by it? If EvilCo buys the copyright of Alice's GPLed Hummity software, they can announce No more GPL on Hummity and then sue, say, Bob, who has copied, distributed, or modified after hearing (actually or constructively) about the announcement. What possible legal theory does Bob have to defend himself from the charge of infringement? I sure don't see any. He was given permission to do so, and nothing in that permission included a condition that the permission may be revoked at will. Well, I found one bit in statute that seems to be what you're referring to. Section 203(c) [1] appears to give a five year window, starting 35 years after the grant of a license, during which authors can revoke licenses. It has a droit d'auteur-esque clause: Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. In order to protect the freedom of authors, the law takes away their freedom to license as they wish. (Taking away freedom to protect freedom--backfires again.) It's limited: it must be served in writing at least two years in advance, and joint works require a majority of the authors. Unless somebody finds something that renders this irrelevant to free software in the next few days, I'll poke [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this. [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/2/sections/section%5F203.html -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?
Glenn Maynard scripsit: He was given permission to do so, and nothing in that permission included a condition that the permission may be revoked at will. The whole definition of bare license means a license that is unsupported by consideration (i.e. not a contract): A bare license must be executed by the party to whom it is given in person, and cannot be made over or assigned by him to another; and, being without consideration, may be revoked at pleasure, as long as it remains executory; 39 Hen. VI. M. 12, page 7; but when carried into effect, either partially or altogether, it can only be rescinded, if in its nature it will admit of revocation, by placing the other side in the same situation in which he stood before he entered on its execution. 8 East, R. 308; Palm. 71; S. C. Poph. 151; S. C. 2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152. --Bouvier (an 1856 public-domain law dictionary) Note that the first citation is to a case decided in 1461, which puts it comfortably in the root of all common-law jurisdictions, unless explicitly overruled by statute (which is unlikely). Well, I found one bit in statute that seems to be what you're referring to. Section 203(c) [1] appears to give a five year window, starting 35 years after the grant of a license, during which authors can revoke licenses. [snip] Unless somebody finds something that renders this irrelevant to free software in the next few days, I'll poke [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this. The FSF is well familiar with this. It's one of the many reasons (or excuses) why Daniel Bernstein refuses to release his software under a free license, since he says that free licenses claim to grant more rights than are actually grantable. (BTW, Bernstein also grants a bare license to copy his almost unmodifiable files, and denies that it is within his power to revoke them, though with no argument why.) -- Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far John Cowan coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that www.ccil.org/~cowan O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word www.reutershealth.com to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All [EMAIL PROTECTED] she there told him, ruing death for friend so young, algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay. Ulysses, Oxen
Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: The GPL isn't a contract, everyone agrees on that. So how can the licensor be bound by it? If EvilCo buys the copyright of Alice's GPLed Hummity software, they can announce No more GPL on Hummity and then sue, say, Bob, who has copied, distributed, or modified after hearing (actually or constructively) about the announcement. The licensor is bound by copyright law. He cannot distribute the work or any work based on it without accepting the GPL and abiding by its terms. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:26:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: The FSF is well familiar with this. It's one of the many reasons (or excuses) why Daniel Bernstein refuses to release his software under a free license, since he says that free licenses claim to grant more rights than are actually grantable. (BTW, Bernstein also grants a bare license to copy his almost unmodifiable files, and denies that it is within his power to revoke them, though with no argument why.) Not sure why you refer to his files as unmodifiable? Do you mean because they are written in a style of C that is unfamiliar to most people? I don't think he's ever argued that it is not within his power to revoke distribution rights (in fact, many of his beta packages had expiration dates, after which distribution was not allowed anymore). What he has argued is that since copyright does not cover use, he cannot revoke your right to use the program after you have legally obtained it. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:33:51 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: It seems that this license is actually doing two fundamentally distinct things: granting a license to people to do stuff, and making promises from the distributor/licensor. I think this combination is what makes it so confusing: [...] I'm sure there's some way to make this stuff clearer for people used to more typical free licenses, but I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps by a) releasing the work under a real copyright license grant (such as the Expat a.k.a. MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) *and* b) offering in parallel an optional `uni-lateral' contract in which the copyright holder promises things to anyone that is willing to accept the contract. In that case Debian would (probably) not accept the contract and simply distribute under the Expat license. And everyone would be happy... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpmlGLSj1rIK.pgp Description: PGP signature
