GPL & Anti-DRM Clause
I am curious to know what people think about Linus Torvalds' comments on the anti-DRM clause in the GPLv3 draft. According to Linus, the GPLv3 (as is) could cause problems, i.e., when needing to run signed code in the kernel. Giving up your private key would make signing the code a moot point. Is this really much of an issue? (maybe there's a kernel hacker here?) Is it desirable/feasible to amend the clause so the FSF can have its cake and eat it too? For instance, Linus suggested that the GPL is not the place to address DRM - rather, it should be addressed in the Creative Commons licenses. I am not advocating Linus' position at this point. I simply want to understand the issues a little better before making up my mind. I actually like the GPLv3 draft, but felt this point raised by Linus was something that deserves a little more scrutiny. Thanks, Don -- DC Parris The Freely Project (USA) www.thefreelyproject.org www.thefreelyproject.us ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? > > My hobby. To each his own. > Yeah, right. The GNU is the "best of breed", I know. Not really. It's just immortal, so it has all the time in the world to improve. And that's an advantage in the long run. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 > +0100: > > > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > >> That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle > >> paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting > >> them up with sentences of your own to give a new short story, you have > >> a derivative work. Doing this may be unusual for stories, but is a > >> perfectly normal way of creating software. > > > Maybe in the GNU Republic. > > Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? My hobby. > > > I can't recall ever "commingling" software. > > You poor thing! No wonder you come over so uptight and frustrated on > this newsgroup. ;-) > > Are you a programmer, in any sense of that word? Sort of. > If so, your failure to > commingle existing software might explain why your software is less good > than GNU's. Yeah, right. The GNU is the "best of breed", I know. > > Did you actually look "commingle" up in a dictionary? I know what you mean. It's akin to Moglen's "interpenetration". regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available > in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted > code (what you've called ".locate_backwards_from_end") has been > extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably derived from > it. Fine. Let your monstrous function be "derived" in its entirety. I don't write monstrous functions. http://www.terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp (all rights reserved). My native language is Russian. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:24:54
+0100:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> For example, just last week I needed a function which searches
>> backwards a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for "Local
>> Variables:", and then deletes any following lines containing "mode:"
>> or "eval:". I extracted the code which did the searching out of an
>> existing function, then added the bits to do the deletion.
> fancy_file("Alan Mackenzie")
> .locate_backwards_from_end("Local Variables:", 3000)
> .delete_any_following_lines_containing("mode:", "eval:");
The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available
in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted
code (what you've called ".locate_backwards_from_end") has been
extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably derived from
it.
> You grabbed some code for locate_backwards_from_end() and changed it.
Yes.
> I authored delete_any_following_lines().
No. There is no contribution from you in the function I am talking
about. You are trying to hypothesise about a different scenario.
>> The resulting function is in no way a "compilation" - it is a
>> derivative of the original function.
> The resulting overall program is a compilation of your work and my
> work. Your work (function locate_backwards_from_end() that contains
> someone else's *modified* code) may well be a derivative work. That
> doesn't change the status of the resulting overall program -- it's
> still a compilation.
No. The function was written by me, a substantial part of it having been
derived from an existing function written by somebody else. The function
I wrote is derived from the original. It is not a "compilation" of my
work with somebody else's, since the constituent parts don't retain their
separate identity.
Think of an embryo - it is not a "compilation" of an egg and a sperm,
since the latter have long since lost their distinctive identity. The
embryo is _derived_ from the egg and sperm, though.
> Got it now?
No. It doesn't seem like you have either.
By the way, is your native language English?
> alexander.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle >> paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting >> them up with sentences of your own to give a new short story, you have >> a derivative work. Doing this may be unusual for stories, but is a >> perfectly normal way of creating software. > Maybe in the GNU Republic. Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? > I can't recall ever "commingling" software. You poor thing! No wonder you come over so uptight and frustrated on this newsgroup. ;-) Are you a programmer, in any sense of that word? If so, your failure to commingle existing software might explain why your software is less good than GNU's. Did you actually look "commingle" up in a dictionary? > regards, > alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace on injury and standing: --- III. Accompanying Injury Plaintiff Daniel Wallace has alleged market foreclosure and denial of opportunity to enter into competition with his own operating system product: The Defendant's pooling and cross licensing of intellectual property with the described predatory price fixing scheme is foreclosing competition in the market for computer operating systems. Said predatory price fixing scheme prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor.; Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint Plaintiff has alleged a threat of market foreclosure - a type of antitrust injury the Supreme Court has described as "facially anticompetitive". "The alleged conduct - higher service prices and market foreclosure - is facially anticompetitive and exactly the harm that antitrust laws aim to prevent."; EASTMAN KODAK CO. v. IMAGE TECH. SVCS., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) The Supreme Court has explicitly held that predatory pricing harms both competitors and competition: "Predatory pricing may be defined as pricing below an appropriate measure of cost for the purpose of eliminating competitors in the short run and reducing competition in the long run. 12 It is a practice [479 U.S. 104, 118] that harms both competitors and competition. In contrast to price cutting aimed simply at increasing market share, predatory pricing has as its aim the elimination of competition. Predatory pricing is thus a practice "inimical to the purposes of [the antitrust] laws," Brunswick, 429 U.S., at 488, and one capable of inflicting antitrust injury."; CARGILL, INC. v. MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., 479 U.S. 104 (1986) [emphasis added]. The Supreme Courts ruling in 1990 in ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO., supra, re-affirms the principle that both competition and competitors may suffer antitrust injury from predatory pricing. Plaintiff has alleged (1) threatened future loss or damage of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent -- market foreclosure and (2) threatened future personal injury which flows from the defendants unlawful acts -- the plaintiff will be substantially deterred from vending in the market with his own operating system product. "To seek an injunction under § 16 of the Clayton Act, a private plaintiff must allege "threatened loss or damage 'of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.'" Cargill Inc., supra.. The antitrust injury to competition by a diminished market and the resultant personal injury to the Plaintiff by his reduced opportunity as a competitor in the relevant market are inextricably linked. --- --- Standing Although plaintiff would be entitled to standing for recovery under even a § 4 action (treble damages), the defendant confuses the standing threshold in the present § 16 action with that of the heightened standard in § 4 cases to which the defendant erroneously cites: Section 16 of the Clayton Act provides in part that "[a]ny person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss [479 U.S. 104, 111] or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . . ." 15 U.S.C. 26. It is plain that 16 and 4 do differ in various ways. For example, 4 requires a plaintiff to show actual injury, but 16 requires a showing only of "threatened" loss or damage; similarly, 4 requires a showing of injury to "business or property," cf. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251 (1972), while 16 contains no such limitation. 6 Although these differences do affect the nature of the injury cognizable under each section, the lower courts, including the courts below, have found that under both 16 and 4 the plaintiff must still allege an injury of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. 7 We agree.; CARGILL, INC. v. MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., supra. See also Judge Posner: But all that this implies, so far as equitable relief is concerned, is that a plaintiff has to prove that he is likely to be harmed by the defendant's wrongful conduct unless that conduct is enjoined.; BLUE CROSS, ET AL. v MARSHFIELD CLINIC, ET AL. No. 94-C-0137 (7th Cir 1998). Whether viewed as a result of a per se pooling agreement as in New Wrinkle Inc, supra, or as a result of a vertical agreement analyzed under a rule of reason as in State Oil Co. v. Khan, supra, predatory pricing results in antitrust injury -- it is "inimical to the purposes of [the antitrust] laws," see Brunswick, 429 U.S., at 488, and harms both competitors and competition, CARGILL, INC, 479 U.S., at 118. The plaintiff has alleged future personal injury because of elimination of market opportunity -- an injury that flows directly from the threatened market foreclosure: Said predatory price fixing scheme prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor.; Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace concludes: --- Conclusion The plaintiff Daniel Wallace in his Complaint has directly or inferentially alleged that the defendants have: (1) used an express contractual agreement to conspire with named co-conspirators and; (2) engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade by pooling intellectual property that is price fixed and distributed at predatory levels and; (3) defendants threaten injury to competition as well as causally linked personal injury to the plaintiff. Wherefore plaintiff Daniel Wallace moves the Court deny the present REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS filed by defendants RED HAT INC. and NOVELL INC., and enter judgment for plaintiff Daniel Wallace. --- regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
John Hasler wrote: > > > Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance > > against people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is > > doing. > > There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants. > > I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that > the judge thinks he is serious, too. US courts go to considerable > lengths to accomodate pro se litigants as access to the courts is > an important right. > > It is possible (though unlikely, I think) that Wallace will have > attorney's fees assessed against him. Well, well, well. Wallace filed reply to "DEFENDANTS RED HAT INC. AND NOVELL INC., REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS." To me, it doesn't look like Red Hat and Novell will get Wallace's case dismissed under 12(b)(6). Wallace on Contract, Combination or Conspiracy: -- I. Contract, Combination or Conspiracy The plaintiff has alleged: The Defendants INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, RED HAT INC. and NOVELL INC. have conspired with the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION INC. and others to pool and cross license their copyrighted intellectual property in computer programs that are collectively known as the Linux (or GNU/Linux) operating system. The Defendants have used a predatory price-fixing agreement known as the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE to pool and cross license their intellectual property to develop, distribute and leverage the Linux operating system to provide computing services for consumers.; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT This case concerns the pooling and cross-licensing of intellectual property in computer programs. The defendant cites a Supreme Court decision, Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 441 U.S. 1, concerning a blanket licensing case. The defendant attempts to equate the use of the blanket license in Broadcast Music with the use of the GNU General Public License (GPL) in the present alleged pooling of computer source code. There is no relevant comparison. The holding in Broadcast Music was narrowly tailored and focused exclusively on the vending of copyrighted works under 17 USC sec. 106(5) involving the public performance of musical compositions: This litigation and other cases involving ASCAP and its licensing practices have arisen out of the efforts of the creators of copyrighted musical compositions to collect for the public performance of their works, as they are entitled to do under the Copyright Act; Broadcast Music at 10. The present case concerns a pooling agreement among individual copyright holders for naked price fixing of computer programs involving rights under 17 USC 106(1), 106(2) and 106(3). The subject GPL license explicitly states: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License . . . Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. [Emphasis added] Thus Broadcast Music contains nothing relevant to the present analysis. -- -- GNU General Public License (GPL) The GPL [exh. 2] is a copyrighted, standardized form license intended for use by the general public. It is a contract of adhesion designed to be applied recursively. The GPL is a contract to require a contract. That is to say, a licensee accepting source code for a computer program that is offered for modification under the GPL license must re-license the resultant derivative or collective work under the identical contractual terms of the original GPL license. The contracts intent is to publicly control a continuous sequence of modifications to a derivative or collective work (computer program). It is a scheme to publicly regulate rights under 17 USC 106(1), 106(2) and 106(3) (hence the license title General Public License). The GPL purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and thus evade the prohibition under 17 USC sec. 301 concerning the contractual regulation of copyrights. The GPLs recursive term 2(b) states: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: . . . b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. [emphasis added] The GPL explicitly declares its regulatory intent: Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.; GPL sec. 2 [emphasis added]. Any licensee who accepts source
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace on predatory pricing: --- Predatory pricing The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum price of intellectual property at no charge removes all motive to compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman Act § 1 civil action: [T]his is a Sherman Act 1 case. For purposes of this case, it is enough to note that respondents have not suffered an antitrust injury unless petitioners conspired to drive respondents out of the relevant markets by (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products, or (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost. MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [fn8]. If we exam case (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products the obvious result of the GPL is the destruction of interbrand competition (see State Oil Co. v. Khan, supra) when the maximum price of intellectual property is set at zero (no charge). New developers and vendors of intellectual property cannot enter a market for which there is no reward or incentive. Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality disappears. When we analyze case (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost we see that a maximum price of zero for the intellectual property in computer programs leads to an absurd result. In addition to the intrinsic value ordained by Art. I, §8, cl. 8 of the Constitution, the cost of creation of intellectual property in computer programs entails the development costs of skilled programmers, new computer hardware, communications costs and administrative overhead. Commercial computer programs are not developed in a zero cost vacuum -- that is an absurd proposition. A maximum price of zero is below any reasonable definition of appropriate measure of cost concerning development and innovation of intellectual property assets. The only economic motive for using GPL licensed intellectual property in a competitive market for computer operating systems is to destroy a competitor who is striving to create positive value based in intellectual property. The Supreme Court has addressed the practical evidentiary burden for a predatory pricing claim: As a practical matter, it may be that only direct evidence of below-cost pricing is sufficient to overcome the strong inference that rational businesses would not enter into conspiracies such as this one; MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986)[fn9]. The GPLs term 2(b) is without question direct evidence of a below-cost pricing scheme. Commercial distributors of GPL licensed products conspire to give away their assets in intellectual property and then recoup losses by leveraging ancillary markets such as computer hardware sales (computer hardware obviously requires an operating system), software consulting fees, employee training programs and computer maintenance services. (One uncharged co-conspirator, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, is the Worlds largest computer hardware and computing services corporation.) The effect of the GPL license is to create a Marxist-Leninist model for computer programs, where a vast pool of intellectual property is collectively price fixed at no charge and thus removed from commercial exploitation. In time, due to its recursive nature, the GPLs pool of price fixed intellectual property can grow to utterly destroy a targeted market. It is not consumers that the GPL intends to benefit -- the goal is the destruction of competition in the free market. The GPL license renders U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8 meaningless in the context of computer programs containing copyrights and patents. The defendants assert: The GPL expressly allows Defendants, and any other licensee, to charge a fee to recover the variable or incremental costs associated with distributing software licensed under the GPL: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.. Defendants Brief at 5. Here, the defendants attempt to conflate the definition of intangible copyright assets with the physical media in which a work is embodied: Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. ..;17 USC sec. 202. The present claim is for price fixing in the relevant market of intangible intellectual property assets in computer programs (the Linux operating system) and not an action concerning tangible media or physical acts involving the distribution of tangible media in which a copyrighted work may be fixed. The plaintiffs complaint has certainly met the pleading requirements expressed in PEGRAM. ET AL., and Denny's Marina, supra, by directly or inferentially alleging the element of an resultant unreasonable restraint of trade in
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards
> a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for "Local Variables:", and
> then deletes any following lines containing "mode:" or "eval:". I
> extracted the code which did the searching out of an existing function,
> then added the bits to do the deletion.
fancy_file("Alan Mackenzie")
.locate_backwards_from_end("Local Variables:", 3000)
.delete_any_following_lines_containing("mode:", "eval:");
You grabbed some code for locate_backwards_from_end() and changed it.
I authored delete_any_following_lines().
>
> The resulting function is in no way a "compilation" - it is a derivative
> of the original function.
The resulting overall program is a compilation of your work and my
work. Your work (function locate_backwards_from_end() that contains
someone else's *modified* code) may well be a derivative work. That
doesn't change the status of the resulting overall program -- it's
still a compilation.
Got it now?
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:20:32 +0100: > Barry Margolin wrote: [...] >> OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the >> topic of the thread? The OP said "a derivative work combined from >> software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software >> licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0". This sounds to me like he's using >> pieces of source code, not combining executables. > Because just like with combined executable, copying source code doesn't > create a derivative work. If anything, it creates a compilation. Alexander, you're mistaken here. Copying and adapting existing source code is an every day activity in programming. For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for "Local Variables:", and then deletes any following lines containing "mode:" or "eval:". I extracted the code which did the searching out of an existing function, then added the bits to do the deletion. The resulting function is in no way a "compilation" - it is a derivative of the original function. > When you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF), > you're not creating a derivative work. And the same goes when you put > several pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. > Think tarball. That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting them up with sentences of your own to give a new short story, you have a derivative work. Doing this may be unusual for stories, but is a perfectly normal way of creating software. [ ] > regards, > alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > The resulting function is in no way a "compilation" - it is a derivative > of the original function. When you modify the source code (change it) or rewrite it in another programming language, that resulting work will be a derivative work (as long as it contains protected elements from the original -- the AFC test). [...] > That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle > paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting > them up with sentences of your own to give a new short story, you have a > derivative work. Doing this may be unusual for stories, but is a > perfectly normal way of creating software. Maybe in the GNU Republic. I can't recall ever "commingling" software. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:32:37 + (UTC) "Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefaan A Eeckels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in > >trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed > >software, but this does not give you, their employee, the right to > >copy and distribute it. The fact that the software is licensed to the > >company under the GPL does not mean that it is licensed to you under > >the GPL, and hence you would be in the dock for theft (of the CD, and > >the software). > > The company would be vicariously responsible for the actions of its > agent, no? If the agent acts against the company's explicit instructions, the company would not be responsible at all. Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical property attached to the software, and not an agreement between licensor and licensee. > That responsibility would either include liability to David the > copyright holder, or it would not. There are two totally separate issues here. The first one is between the employee and the employer/licensee. It is obvious that license agreements entered into by an employer are not automatically applicable to the employee (and vice versa). Even if not formally instructed not to distribute software, the employee doesn't get the right to distribute software obtained by the employer even if the license permits the employer/licensee to distribute copies (the moment you think of software not licensed under the GPL this becomes evident). The second one is between David (as licensor) and the employer. If the software was licensed under the GPL, then David cannot stop the licensee from redistributing it. If he shows pre-releases under another license, or no license at all, then it is obvious that the terms of the GPL would not apply. But in no case does the employee gain any rights from a license he was not party to. <...> > Other than that I fail to see how the employee can get into any > trouble other than insuburdination, which is a matter between > employer and employee only. If David doesn't want employees > distributing his software before he wants it distributed, I'm sure > he's smart enough not to distribute it under the (unencumbered) GPL > in the first place! I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's property, whatever the conditions were under which it was acquired. The same would apply to the files on my computer if you were to borrow it. None of the software on that machine is a "copy that you rightfully acquired", and hence you have no right to copy it, whatever its license. You own no copies, and you have no license. It's as simple as that. Take care, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefaan A Eeckels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in >>trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed >>software, but this does not give you, their employee, the right to copy >>and distribute it. The fact that the software is licensed to the >>company under the GPL does not mean that it is licensed to you under >>the GPL, and hence you would be in the dock for theft (of the CD, and >>the software). > > The company would be vicariously responsible for the actions of its > agent, no? The company could not be made responsible at all, since it has the _right_ to _give_ the employee the software under the GPL. The copyright holder can only sue the employee if the company does not cover for him. Why would they not cover for him? Maybe because there has been an _understanding_ that the software was not supposed to get redistributed in its current form, and breaking that understanding will make it harder for them to get stuff in prerelease state in future. The only party that actually _can_ be sued in such circumstances is the employee. By the copyright holder to cease distribution (damages would be hard to estimate, though, since literally the company could have chosen to pass a copy of the software on), by the company for misuse of company resources. > That responsibility would either include liability to David the > copyright holder, or it would not. > > If liability to David arises, the licence was obviously not an > unencumbered GPL, since GPL gives the company exactly the rights > which the employee exercised. It gives the _company_ the right to pass a copy of the software under the GPL. It does not give the employee the right to just grab it. > Other than that I fail to see how the employee can get into any > trouble other than insuburdination, which is a matter between > employer and employee only. If the company does not back up the employee, he has no license to do what he chooses with the company copy of the software. They employee is not in trouble because of his acts as an agent of his company, but because of his acts as a private person. If the company covers for him and declares him to have been acting as the company's agent when licensing himself as a private person a copy of his own, there is nothing the copyright holder can complain about. > If David doesn't want employees distributing his software before he > wants it distributed, I'm sure he's smart enough not to distribute > it under the (unencumbered) GPL in the first place! David is smart enough not to play license mess. That's only aggravating to your business partners. If one does not believe they can keep their employees disciplined, just cease business with them. It is important that copies of the software can be taken to employees' computers and tested there as well without legal worries. Business relationships need a certain amount of common sense in them. If the other is noncooperative, too bad. Then you just pick your partners or your way of dealing with them more careful in future. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in >trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed >software, but this does not give you, their employee, the right to copy >and distribute it. The fact that the software is licensed to the >company under the GPL does not mean that it is licensed to you under >the GPL, and hence you would be in the dock for theft (of the CD, and >the software). The company would be vicariously responsible for the actions of its agent, no? That responsibility would either include liability to David the copyright holder, or it would not. If liability to David arises, the licence was obviously not an unencumbered GPL, since GPL gives the company exactly the rights which the employee exercised. If David imposed an NDA or other restriction, surely that preempts the GPL (but only because he as copyright holder is free to distribute under any conditions he wishes)? If the company did receive the software under an unencumbered GPL, are there any other vicarious liabilities that may arise? I suppose there could be, if the software embodies "Born Secret" (pretend for a moment it is constitutional) or is libelous, for example. I don't see this as having anything to do with the GPL though, although I seems to me that the GPL does address this possibility (see part of section 7 below (*)). Other than that I fail to see how the employee can get into any trouble other than insuburdination, which is a matter between employer and employee only. If David doesn't want employees distributing his software before he wants it distributed, I'm sure he's smart enough not to distribute it under the (unencumbered) GPL in the first place! (*) Part of GPLv2 section 7: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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. ... - -- "If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge." - Henry Spencer -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD6wuLwyMv24BBd/gRAvJKAKCG9wLd+NpjbMRlZnpUV9/YI/xT0gCgmGA1 tMIk5Q3TSiTqloqkv9AJ4HM= =5YsT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
