Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On Thursday 12. March 2015 02.12, Pamela Chestek wrote: But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of being printed. I remember in Norway where I live, it was common in the 1990s to have wrapped software CDs with a seal that said something to the effect of «by breaking this seal, you accept the enclosed license». A later court rulling stated that the license in such cases where invalid/not enforceable because the licensee could not read the terms of the enclosed contract before agreeing to it. The holder of the software copy did therefore not have to abide by the license restrictions. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 3/10/2015 12:55 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: Fortunately, books are also sold -- at least so far, though nothing stops book publishers from putting the same sort of notice into each copy of a book and gutting the used-book market. A Supreme Court case does: The precise question, therefore, in this case is, does the sole right to vend (named in § 4952) secure to the owner of the copyright the right, after a sale of the book to a purchaser, to restrict future sales of the book at retail, to the right to sell it at a certain price per copy, because of a notice in the book that a sale at a different price will be treated as an infringement, which notice has been brought home to one undertaking to sell for less than the named sum? We do not think the statute can be given such a construction, and it is to be remembered that this is purely a question of statutory construction. There is no claim in this case of contract limitation, nor license agreement controlling the subsequent sales of the book. In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350 (U.S. 1908). So at least they'd have to shrink-wrap it --- Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com Board Certified by the NC State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Hello, One may wonder what is the big deal with this single phrase in LGPL. It basically states something fairly similar with EU software directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024 Please see art. 6, Decompilation: The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, [...] This decompilation provision is very narrow, but it says in plain English that there are cases when the user of computer software has the right to copy the software privately and even decompile it. I compare with LGPL 2.1: it says that users of the other program have the right to reproduce/decompile the other program in order to achieve interoperability with the LGPLed library, including with an user-modified version of that library. you may also combine or link a work that uses the Library with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. This is a similar scope with Article 6 (though not identical; nor can it, since it talks about works based on the work while EU directive about any interoperability). The recipient has a right to take actions that fall under reverse engineering (copying, testing, decompiling the whole thing) for interoperability. Integration between the library and the other work is an example of precisely interoperability between the two. LGPL2.1 provision is very narrow too, for customer's own use and for debugging why the modified library doesn't work as expected. Not more. In other words, LGPL2.1 *shouldn't need* to say its little phrase today, or apparently surprise corporate lawyers/speakers at all, because this is supposed to be law already in EU: the legal protection of software contains users' right to decompile under specific narrow circumstances, no matter what the proprietary license agreement claims. Since 1991 at least. (The directive precursor of the current one was from 1991; for comparison, LGPL-2.0 seems to be from 1991 as well [1], and LGPL-2.1 from 1999.) Is there some law in Germany, which is contrary to this right? As long as we do not have a legal decision Commentators say that SAS v. World Programming is a pertinent legal decision, for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-02/copyright-can-t-block-software-reverse-engineering-court (These are EU examples. In US, things are framed a bit differently, i.e. the right to reverse engineering with the purpose to discover uncopyrightable elements necessary for interoperability with other software is under fair use, with circuit-dependent and case-dependent interpretation.) [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html -- Oracle corollary to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice. (~ adapted from Adam Borowski) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
[side issue below] John Cowan wrote: In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract. I'm not sure that's true for sublicensed software. That's why I objected to the sublicensing provision in a recently-approved license. Most licenses nowadays fortunately are directly from the licensor to the licensee. Sublicensing not involved. /Larry -Original Message- From: co...@ccil.org [mailto:co...@ccil.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:58 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses Pamela Chestek quotavit: In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract. In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350 (U.S. 1908). I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909 Act, but not present in the 1976 Act. So at least they'd have to shrink-wrap it --- Naah. If anything, shrink-wrapping makes it harder, not easier, to show the licensee's consent to the contract. If the license were printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle trying to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance of the license. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested with blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall it capture. And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating shall it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity and most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein. --Gospel of Tux ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Pamela Chestek asked: Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? DANGER: Poison inside! Otherwise, thanks to Pamela for her legal research on the first sale doctrine as applied to copyrighted articles! Lawrence Rosen If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill. -Original Message- From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909 Act, but not present in the 1976 Act. Quite the contrary, cited as a fundamental case on first sale in Kirtsaeng: A law that permits a copyright holder to control the resale or other disposition of a chattel once sold is similarly against Trade and Traffi[c], and bargaining and contracting. ... The first sale doctrine also frees courts from the administrative burden of trying to enforce restrictions upon difficult-to-trace, readily movable goods. And it avoids the selective enforcement inherent in any such effort. Thus, it is not surprising that for at least a century the first sale doctrine has played an important role in American copyright law. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086, 6 Ohio L. Rep. 323 (1908); Copyright Act of 1909, §41, 35 Stat. 1084 The common-law doctrine makes no geographical distinctions; nor can we find any in Bobbs-Merrill (where this Court first applied the first sale doctrine) or in §109(a)s predecessor provision, which Congress enacted a year later. See supra, [1364] at ___, 185 L. Ed. 2d, at 405. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363-1364 (U.S. 2013) If the license were printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle trying to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance of the license. Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com Board Certified by the NC State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909 Act, but not present in the 1976 Act. Quite the contrary, cited as a fundamental case on first sale in Kirtsaeng: A law that permits a copyright holder to control the resale or other disposition of a chattel once sold is similarly “against Trade and Traffi[c], and bargaining and contracting.” ... The “first sale” doctrine also frees courts from the administrative burden of trying to enforce restrictions upon difficult-to-trace, readily movable goods. And it avoids the selective enforcement inherent in any such effort. Thus, it is not surprising that for at least a century the “first sale” doctrine has played an important role in American copyright law. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086, 6 Ohio L. Rep. 323 (1908); Copyright Act of 1909, §41, 35 Stat. 1084 The common-law doctrine makes no geographical distinctions; nor can we find any in Bobbs-Merrill (where this Court first applied the “first sale” doctrine) or in §109(a)s predecessor provision, which Congress enacted a year later. See supra, [1364] at ___, 185 L. Ed. 2d, at 405. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363-1364 (U.S. 2013) If the license were printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle trying to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance of the license. Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com Board Certified by the NC State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Pamela Chestek quotavit: In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract. In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350 (U.S. 1908). I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909 Act, but not present in the 1976 Act. So at least they'd have to shrink-wrap it --- Naah. If anything, shrink-wrapping makes it harder, not easier, to show the licensee's consent to the contract. If the license were printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle trying to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance of the license. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested with blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall it capture. And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating shall it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity and most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein. --Gospel of Tux ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Pamela Chestek scripsit: Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? Isn't boxed software a tangible article? If the box doesn't count, the CD/DVD surely does. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org How comes city and country to be filled with drones and rogues, our highways with hackers, and all places with sloth and wickedness? --W. Blith, Eng. Improver Improved, 1652 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of being printed. And the printed for promotional use on cds was held not an enforceable license. Pam Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device -- Original message-- From: John Cowan Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 8:53 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Subject:Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses Pamela Chestek scripsit: Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? Isn't boxed software a tangible article? If the box doesn't count, the CD/DVD surely does. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org How comes city and country to be filled with drones and rogues, our highways with hackers, and all places with sloth and wickedness? --W. Blith, Eng. Improver Improved, 1652 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Smith, McCoy scripsit: The conditional sale cases under the patent law (of which there are but a few, the Mallinckrodt case being the most notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallinckrodt,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc. ) might be an example, although I don't recall if there was any sort of true contract analysis in that case. I don't think there was. It was just another example of massive overreaching by the Patent Holder's^W^W Federal Circuit. There is some debate as to whether the conditional sale cases are good law anymore post the US Supreme Court's Quanta decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc. I hope not, but the Supremes seem to have left the question vague. In particular, none of these cases have to do with contract restrictions. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org I marvel at the creature: so secret and so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool before our very window. Does he think that Men sleep without watch all night?--Faramir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 3/11/2015 5:48 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: DANGER: Poison inside! I would go with assumption of risk on that one. :-) Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com Board Certified by the NC State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 11/03/2015 01:07, John Cowan wrote: No, of course not. But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is exhausted; when I buy proprietary software, it is not, and I have no right to resell. The difference is that the book is purchased whereas the proprietary software is only licensed. Just to add here that in the European Union, following the Usedsoft v Oracle decision (case C-128/11), the right of the developer/copyright owner to control distribution is indeed exhausted after first sale and proprietary licensed software *can* be resold despite any clause in the licence to the contrary. Of course, this requires that the licence is not for a fixed time period and that any DRM controls would not be interferred with in the process, but hey it's a start! -- Maximilian ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? The conditional sale cases under the patent law (of which there are but a few, the Mallinckrodt case being the most notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallinckrodt,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc. ) might be an example, although I don't recall if there was any sort of true contract analysis in that case. There is some debate as to whether the conditional sale cases are good law anymore post the US Supreme Court's Quanta decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc. I'll let any law professors on the mailing list further elucidate the latter question. -Original Message- From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909 Act, but not present in the 1976 Act. Quite the contrary, cited as a fundamental case on first sale in Kirtsaeng: A law that permits a copyright holder to control the resale or other disposition of a chattel once sold is similarly against Trade and Traffi[c], and bargaining and contracting. ... The first sale doctrine also frees courts from the administrative burden of trying to enforce restrictions upon difficult-to-trace, readily movable goods. And it avoids the selective enforcement inherent in any such effort. Thus, it is not surprising that for at least a century the first sale doctrine has played an important role in American copyright law. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086, 6 Ohio L. Rep. 323 (1908); Copyright Act of 1909, §41, 35 Stat. 1084 The common-law doctrine makes no geographical distinctions; nor can we find any in Bobbs-Merrill (where this Court first applied the first sale doctrine) or in §109(a)s predecessor provision, which Congress enacted a year later. See supra, [1364] at ___, 185 L. Ed. 2d, at 405. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363-1364 (U.S. 2013) If the license were printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle trying to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance of the license. Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it? Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com Board Certified by the NC State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-08 01:33 PM, John Cowan wrote: Frankly, I have zero sympathy for Baystate's behavior. Bowers offered to license his technology on commercial terms, and they told him they thought they could do it themselves. They then licensed a copy of his work, accepting in the process the license's prohibition on reverse engineering, which they then proceeded to reverse engineer. When Bowers sued, they tried to claim that this part of the contract didn't apply to them. Legally, they could have been right; ethically, their position is bargain-basement. Hard cases, as the saying is, make bad law, and now we're stuck with it. In terms of right/wrong, reverse engineering shrink-wrapped software, or firmware for something you buy off the shelf, *seems*, to me, distinct from what's described above, approaching someone, not negotiating, etc. I suppose it comes down to whether or not the binary has been legally obtained. The problem is that when you get into EULA, then the precedent this sets allows a prohibition against reverse engineering most any proprietary software -- all that's needed is clause! That surely wasn't the intention of the legislature in the US when they wrote laws about this. Does the same logic apply to widgets? If so, that would, potentially, kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse engineered from the original. -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
David Woolley scripsit: You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but you can't buy the novel that it contains (the author will not assign copyright to you). No, of course not. But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is exhausted; when I buy proprietary software, it is not, and I have no right to resell. The difference is that the book is purchased whereas the proprietary software is only licensed. Incidenally, UK publishers do, or at least did, put constraints on the resale of books (not to be sold or lent in any cover other than the original). That happens in the U.S. too. A retailer can get full credit for a book by returning just the cover, but they are then not entitled to resell the rest of the book. Exhaustion hasn't kicked in at that point because the retailer is not an ultimate purchaser. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org I marvel at the creature: so secret and so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool before our very window. Does he think that Men sleep without watch all night?--Faramir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Thufir Hawat scripsit: Does the same logic apply to widgets? If so, that would, potentially, kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse engineered from the original. Cars and their parts are sold, not licensed. If purchasers of proprietary software would insist on buying software rather than licensing it, the problem wouldn't arise. Fortunately, books are also sold -- at least so far, though nothing stops book publishers from putting the same sort of notice into each copy of a book and gutting the used-book market. (I'm 56. I think I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of Red Hat Linux back in 1999. All the rest has been licensed under either a proprietary or an open-source license.) -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org You're a brave man! Go and break through the lines, and remember while you're out there risking life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are!--Rufus T. Firefly ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Johnny A. Solbu scripsit: Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did buy it, then it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's property. That copy was my property and not Red Hat's. They were of course free to make other copies, as was I. Similarly, when I download a copy of some open-source software, that copy belongs to me, and I can do what I like with it. That doesn't mean I own the copy*right*, just the copy. You would own it and could deny Redhat their use of it. I.e. If i bougth your car, I could deny you your use of the car, but if I licenced it, it would still be your car, but I got usage rights to it. Just so. My car is mine, and my copy of RHL is mine. But my copy of Windows is *not* mine, given the terms of the proprietary license. In principle Microsoft could revoke the license at any time, and I'd have to destroy the copy. If I sell you the computer, the Windows license does *not* go with it, nor do I retain it -- it evaporates. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org How they ever reached any conclusion at all is starkly unknowable to the human mind.--Backstage Lensman, Randall Garrett ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
David Woolley scripsit: You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a single copy. By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to be the case. Red Hat don't even have the right to sell most of Linux as people like the FSF own it. The FSF actually encourages people to sell copies of their software: see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. In the past they themselves have sold copies on magtape and later on CD at a high price: see http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull24.html#SEC26. A lot of what you were probably trying to say is US specific, as it relates to the first sale doctrine. The first-sale doctrine also applies in the EU under the name of exhaustion, as well as in Canada and Australia. In the EU, the product must have been first sold within the EU in order for exhaustion to kick in. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, I want to be rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 10/03/15 23:53, John Cowan wrote: You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a single copy. By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to be the case. You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but you can't buy the novel that it contains (the author will not assign copyright to you). Incidenally, UK publishers do, or at least did, put constraints on the resale of books (not to be sold or lent in any cover other than the original). ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On Tuesday 10. March 2015 17.55, co...@ccil.org wrote: I think I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of Red Hat Linux back in 1999. All the rest has been licensed under either a proprietary or an open-source license. Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did buy it, then it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's property. You would own it and could deny Redhat their use of it. I.e. If i bougth your car, I could deny you your use of the car, but if I licenced it, it would still be your car, but I got usage rights to it. The Redhat distribution you bought back in 1999 was a collection of Free and Open Source software that you got a license to use in any way you wanted. The difference between that and software from e.g. microsoft of Apple is that you also got a license to use the source code any way you wanted, as long as you followed the terms of the license. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
thufir scripsit: I don't think it's necessary to write a PDF about it, but, still, interesting. IMHO this is bad policy, a bad law, but there you are. Did this change at one point? I thought that reverse engineering was found to be legal, at least in the US? And this Bowers v Baystate set a precedent where it could be prohibited!? Frankly, I have zero sympathy for Baystate's behavior. Bowers offered to license his technology on commercial terms, and they told him they thought they could do it themselves. They then licensed a copy of his work, accepting in the process the license's prohibition on reverse engineering, which they then proceeded to reverse engineer. When Bowers sued, they tried to claim that this part of the contract didn't apply to them. Legally, they could have been right; ethically, their position is bargain-basement. Hard cases, as the saying is, make bad law, and now we're stuck with it. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org But that, he realized, was a foolish thought; as no one knew better than he that the Wall had no other side. --Arthur C. Clarke, The Wall of Darkness ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-07 08:03 AM, John Cowan wrote: thufir scripsit: Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse engineering? The terms of the license, to be sure. Many proprietary licenses require you to give up the right to reverse engineer the software in order to obtain the right to use the software at all. The statement Reverse engineering is legal is not equivalent to A license requirement not to reverse engineer is void, any more than the freedom of speech means that non-disclosure agreements are void. We can contract out of our rights to do all sorts of things, and do so daily. Well, I stand corrected. The book of knowledge (wikipedia) says: Reverse engineering of computer software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software in the US often falls under both contract law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law as a breach of contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract as well as any other relevant laws. This is because most EULA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA's (end user license agreement) specifically prohibit it, and U.S. courts have ruled that if such terms are present, they override the copyright law which expressly permits it (see /Bowers v. Baystate Technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies/^[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#cite_note-29 ^[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#cite_note-30 ). It was my understanding that contract law couldn't prohibit this. Ok, well now I understand the concern :) I don't think it's necessary to write a PDF about it, but, still, interesting. IMHO this is bad policy, a bad law, but there you are. Did this change at one point? I thought that reverse engineering was found to be legal, at least in the US? And this Bowers v Baystate set a precedent where it could be prohibited!? Not good. I'd hoped, and believed, that reverse engineering would always be legal, provided you jump through the requisite hoops. -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
[top-posting by way of preamble, apologies to others receiving this: thufir is someone whom i have interacted with in the past without achieving successful rational communication, on the gpl-violations mailing list] ah, thufir, after a long time, you initiate a discussion (directly to me) for which i have no context. but i do recall distinctly that i had given up communicating with you because, from the previous conversations i deemed that you were unable to follow lengthy rational arguments, and, furthermore, that you had the unfortunate (and very common) psychological flaw of assuming personal affront and insult when presented even with rational and objective criticism. as there has been a long period since the last public conversations, i will give you the benefit of the doubt - once and only once - that you have since fixed these flaws in the way that you interact with others on the internet, but if i see even one indication that you have not you, i simply will not respond further. at all. i trust that this is clear, and i apologise for taking up everyone else's time with this lengthy preamble. On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:30 PM, thufir hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not in specifics, at least in results and effects. as i have no context for these discussions, i performed a search on a specific phrase and noted this: https://github.com/dtag-dbu/oslic/blob/master/articles/oslic-reveng.tex i assume therefore that the PDF being discussed was generated from that latex source, and i assume also that my input is being solicited. i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copyrighting of APIs, that the issue of why copyrighting of APIs is extremely bad for the entire software industry and is a GENERAL PROBLEM NOT SPECIFIC TO THE GPL. i further assume that this is something that you now understand and accept, but if you do not, please do not ask me to explain it: i do not have time to explain what 77 experts in their field all agree on but that you have demonstrated in the past that you do not. in case you have not read that amicus brief of six months ago here is a copy: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_computer-scientists-certpetition-amicus-brief_14-410_final.pdf The FSF, to the extent I was able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking GPL'ed API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation, and slapping any old licence on the result. (Might be the ASL, or might not.) To emphasize: they don't just say it's ok, but actually encourage this. that is because it actually has nothing to do with the GPL, nor with the FSF. it could be any software license, and it could be any organisation, individual or corporation. the only reason why the FSF is speaking up is because they are supporting the principle concept of software freedom *in general*. most organisations and especially corporations do not speak up, even if they know that copyrighting of APIs is a serious problem, because they have decided that it is neither their vocation or in their best [usually financial or other short-term] interests to do so. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.gpl.violations.legal/4370 So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door on this. no it has not. from previous experience, you have a habit of being unable to discern between correlation and causation, and have shown a tendency to not be able to follow logical chains of reasoning. i believe you are making a similar mistake here, by using the phrase has opened the door on this in assuming that the development and release of the GPL is solely and exclusively responsible for why reverse-engineering is permitted. l. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 07:14 PM, thufir wrote: i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copyrighting of APIs, If you'd like to delve into the specifics of that amicus brief, I'd be glad to, and would point you to alternate briefs disagreeing fundamentally on, in particular, the implications of a decision in favor of Oracle, in respect on the copyrightability of API's. While it's seen as doom and gloom, I'd say not so, and, if you like, will quote someone else on that. But it's moot, the FSF has already filed its briefs. It's not a poll; or, rather, it's only a poll of the SCOTUS. That being said, of course I take your point that, I'm sure, quite a few prominent computer scientists disagree. They can still be wrong, can't they? -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-04 07:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote: Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely sure, that none of these open source licenses requires to allow reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs and that particularly even the LGPL-v2 does not require reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs. I don't understand where you're coming from. For the sake of argument, let's say that the above holds, and LGPL v2 allows reverse engineering. Cui bono? Who benefits? ...companies are not able to protect these ‘private’ programs against revealing the embedded business relevant secrets... So, if the company doesn't link to LGPL'ed software, then they're protected from having their binary reverse engineered? I suppose the competitors of the original company would benefit from such a scenario, provided they wanted to reverse engineer the first companies software. For the sake of argument, this is being accepted as fact. How does *not* linking against LGPL'ed libraries *protect* the company from having their product reverse engineered? Surely some software, sometimes, gets reverse engineered -- legally. By what mechanism would *avoiding* LGPL'ed libraries prevent reverse engineering? Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse engineering? -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote: i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copyrighting of APIs, that the issue of why copyrighting of APIs is extremely bad for the entire software industry and is a GENERAL PROBLEM NOT SPECIFIC TO THE GPL. No, I do not agree with your assertion on the value of polling. Polls, even amongst distinguished scientists, have nothing to do with what's right, wrong, moral, legal, or even a good idea. Well, I'll have to backtrack and say that a poll of the Supreme Court would show what's legal ;) There are other amicus briefs; I'm more than willing to delve into details if you like. I only cc'ed you because I quoted you, so figured you should at least be aware of that, and, you (I think) cc'ed on another discussion from someone asking for archives on another list (very strange question). -Thufir -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote: So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door on this. no it has not. from previous experience, you have a habit of being unable to discern between correlation and causation, and have shown a tendency to not be able to follow logical chains of reasoning. While I appreciate that you continue the insults, that wasn't my full point above, as you should know, since we exchanged x number of e-mails on the subject. Allow me to elaborate: Generally, reverse engineering is expensive in dollars and time. Should Google win this battle, the result will be to weaken the GPL. Had Google been forced to resort to reverse engineering then Dalvik would've either been under the GPL or under some license from Oracle. I would've rather seen Dalvik GPL'ed. The upshot being that, for any sufficiently large company, the GPL is just a bump in the road and not a real impediment. In my opinion the FSF is only slitting its own throat by siding with Google on this topic. However, the die is cast: the FSF submitted it's amicus brief, so any further discussion is moot; but if you like, sure. (I would point out that if you've inferred that I'm in favor of copyrights on software, or something along those lines, you'd be mistaken. Or copyrights on GUI interfaces, or copyrights on...or patents on rounded corners...or maybe patents at all. The point is that, in an imperfect world, a stronger GPL is better than a weaker GPL. It's strictly a question of lesser evils. Anyhow.) -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not in specifics, at least in results and effects. The FSF, to the extent I was able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking GPL'ed API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation, and slapping any old licence on the result. (Might be the ASL, or might not.) To emphasize: they don't just say it's ok, but actually encourage this. I read a bit of the pdf: For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL libraries until I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse engineering. The FSF itself, in form of a quote from Dr. Stallman, endorses this: We oppose interface copyright and have always opposed it. I founded an organization in 1990, the League for Programming Freedom, to fight against user interface copyright, but we oppose API copyright just the same. -Dr. Stallman http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.gpl.violations.legal/4370 So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door on this. If necessary, I'm sure they'll put something about this in GPL v4. The point is that there's no need to reverse engineer, there's a much simpler approach, which is less expensive: Java is just one example of which has been copied without the need for reverse engineering at all. Reverse engineering GPL'ed software is beside the point. -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 03:30 PM, thufir wrote: For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL libraries until I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse engineering. Admittedly, I have no idea how to parse that sentence and lost interest at that point. First off, it doesn't matter what LGPL has to say about, because, at least in the U.S.A., reverse engineering is legal: 'Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_1201000-.html) says that a person who is in legal possession of a program, is permitted to reverse-engineer and circumvent its protection if this is necessary in order to achieve interoperability' -wikipedia So, even if the LGPL prevents, or allows, reverse engineering, it doesn't matter, because reverse engineering is legal. No license can make reverse engineering illegal. So why this person cares what the license says is confusing. It doesn't matter what the license says about reverse engineering (not that I think it says anything on the topic). Secondly, the sentence itself makes no sense, at least to me. How can the LGPL require reverse engineering? Meaning that anyone using the library is then required to reverse engineer it? Or cannot? The sentence makes no sense itself to me. This license requires that anyone using the software reverse engineer it. Nope, makes no sense; although I suppose you could require that anyone using the library stand on their head(?). The negation of that sentence, that reverse engineering of the license is prohibited, at least makes sense, but just doesn't matter -- because reverse engineering software is legal. So the person making the statement is either raising non-issues or is unaware of the legality of reverse engineering (to be charitable). Maybe they mean anyone forking this library is required to first reverse engineer this library is just absurd, but, maybe that's what the concern is...? What is their actual concern? -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Actually there is an excellent reason why distribution is key here. The LGPL is a copyright license. Its reasoning is based on the idea that if you do something otherwise forbidden by copyright, then you're forced to either follow the license, or be sued for copyright violation. But this only works if you do something otherwise forbidden by copyright. Receiving a copy of a library is not forbidden. Current US precedent says that an API is not covered by copyright, and therefore programming to the API is allowed. (There is a lawsuit between Oracle and Google that potentially could change this.) And precedent exists saying that the virtual copy in RAM from dynamic linking is allowed. But distribution is covered by copyright law. Therefore if you are writing and distributing an application which is meant to be dynamically linked to an LGPL library, the *only* thing you typically do which requires copyright permission is to distribute the library. No matter what the library author may think of your actions, until you distribute the library, you do not require permission. But once you have, then we're into the question of whether your actions fell within the permission granted by the license or not. And if you and the author of the library cannot reach agreement, then the disagreement will need to be settled by a court. Which could rule either way. So if you want to be cautious, here is what you do. Do not distribute *GPL software unless you intend to comply with the author's understanding of their license. Which frequently will match the FSF's understanding. And they've written a FAQ explaining what that is. So play it safe according to that FAQ, and you should be fine. This is all, of course, according to my understanding of US law. I have no idea how different the situation may be in other countries. And I still am not a lawyer. :-) On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Wiedemann, Claus-Peter claus-peter.wiedem...@bearingpoint.com wrote: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 03:51 An: License Discuss Cc: ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; karen.copenha...@gmail.com; arm...@tjaldur.nl; Wiedemann, Claus-Peter; Schwegler, Robert Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses [...] The intended interpretation of the drafters is made clear at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic. They distinguish by how the software is distributed. If you distribute code that dynamically links to an LGPL library that is already present, you have not created a Combined Work. On the other hand if you distribute the library you will dynamically link to with your code, you *have* created a Combined Work. There is a grey area where you distribute both, but not at the same time. My suspicion is that they would at that point distinguish based on whether or not you intend to link them. I don't think it makes a difference wrt to the Combined Work aspect. The fact that a Combined Work or better a work that uses the Library is created is independent from the specific way of distribution. It does not matter if you distribute the library together with the program, or not. If the program needs it to run, it is a work that uses the Library. Some people think they can evade the LGPL obligations for the program (e.g. permit reverse engineering) by not distributing the library. I don't think that works. The reason why the FAQ makes a distinction here is simple. If the library is already present on the user's computer, then one can assume that the user is already in possession of the corresponding source code (which must have been provided earlier together the library). In this case there is no obligation to provide the source code again. In LGPL V2.1, this is made explicit in section 6e) e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy. Best regards Claus-Peter (not a lawyer, either) BearingPoint GmbH Geschäftsführer: Marcel Nickler (Vorsitzender), Hans-Werner Wurzel (stellv. Vorsitzender), Kiumars Hamidian, Matthias Loebich, Kai Wächter, Dr. Robert Wagner Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Beat Leimbacher Sitz: Frankfurt am Main Registergericht: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55490 The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system. ___ License-discuss mailing list License
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Sorry, but this is a ridiculously heavyweight way of thinking about things. The problem with thinking in a heavyweight fashion is that it is easy to lose track of what is going on, and hard for anyone else to wade through it and point out the error. However I'll try. On page 6 you are arguing for a specific interpretation based on your claim that an alternate one would not achieve the aims of the drafters of the LGPL. But you set up a false dichotomy. There are other possible interpretations that you have not considered. And rather than trying to reason it out from first principles, it is better to just ask the source. The intended interpretation of the drafters is made clear at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic. They distinguish by how the software is distributed. If you distribute code that dynamically links to an LGPL library that is already present, you have not created a Combined Work. On the other hand if you distribute the library you will dynamically link to with your code, you *have* created a Combined Work. There is a grey area where you distribute both, but not at the same time. My suspicion is that they would at that point distinguish based on whether or not you intend to link them. Before you argue against this interpretation, I remind you that your argument on page 6 rests on the expertise of the drafters of the license. In your words, We know that the inventors of the GNU licenses and GNU software are very sophisticated experts. But if you accept them as experts, you are in no position to argue about what they say about how their own license is supposed to be interpreted. For the record, I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. And in common law countries, until a legal precedent is set, there is no way to tell whether the courts will interpret the license in the way that the drafters hope they will. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de wrote: Dear Colleagues; In the past I was involved in some full discussions concerning the issue ‘reverse engineering and open source licenses’. Although personally esteeming and inspiring, such discussions sometimes became a bit explosive: If – at least – the LGPL-v2 indeed requires to allow the reverse engineering of those programs which use LGPL-v2 licensed components, then companies are not able to protect these ‘private’ programs against revealing the embedded business relevant secrets, even if they do not distribute the corresponding source code. And – as far as I know – at least some companies have therefore forbidden to link essential programs against the LGPL-v2. I have taken the view that this ‘rule of reverse engineering’ cannot be applied in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs. By arguing that way, I caused astonishment and dissents. But often, I was also asked to note down my argumentation, because some of my partners wanted to review it in detail. They had the hope to get a solution for conflict of using open source software compliantly and protecting their business relevant software. During the last two month, I had the pleasure to fulfill this request by writing the corresponding article. Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely sure, that none of these open source licenses requires to allow reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs and that particularly even the LGPL-v2 does not require reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs. Unfortunately, the deduction of this position had to become more complex than initially thought. But fortunately, it could preserve a straight-forward argumentation: After having started with a linguistic disambiguation and transposing the license statements into a logical formula, it derives the results by using logic ways of inferring a conclusion. And this method is applied for the LGPL-v2, for the LGPL-v3, and for the other most important open source licenses. Hence, for now, I – for myself - am indeed sure, that my argumentation is valid and mandatory. But subjective certainty is not enough. As long as we do not have a legal decision, the best way to become sure is to invoke a discussion (and a consensus) by publishing the results. For that purpose, we decided, not only to insert the analysis into the OSLiC, but to distribute that chapter also as an autonomous article (http://opensource.telekom.net/oslic/en/planning/results.html ). Thus, it is also licensed under the der CC-BY-SA-3.0. So, feel free to use it, to modify it, and/or to share it. The sources of the pdf are part of the OSLiC repository (https://github.com/dtag-dbu/oslic/ ). We, Deutsche Telekom AG and I, Karsten Reincke, are indeed hoping to having contributed something which
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 03:51 An: License Discuss Cc: ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; karen.copenha...@gmail.com; arm...@tjaldur.nl; Wiedemann, Claus-Peter; Schwegler, Robert Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses [...] The intended interpretation of the drafters is made clear at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic. They distinguish by how the software is distributed. If you distribute code that dynamically links to an LGPL library that is already present, you have not created a Combined Work. On the other hand if you distribute the library you will dynamically link to with your code, you *have* created a Combined Work. There is a grey area where you distribute both, but not at the same time. My suspicion is that they would at that point distinguish based on whether or not you intend to link them. I don't think it makes a difference wrt to the Combined Work aspect. The fact that a Combined Work or better a work that uses the Library is created is independent from the specific way of distribution. It does not matter if you distribute the library together with the program, or not. If the program needs it to run, it is a work that uses the Library. Some people think they can evade the LGPL obligations for the program (e.g. permit reverse engineering) by not distributing the library. I don't think that works. The reason why the FAQ makes a distinction here is simple. If the library is already present on the user's computer, then one can assume that the user is already in possession of the corresponding source code (which must have been provided earlier together the library). In this case there is no obligation to provide the source code again. In LGPL V2.1, this is made explicit in section 6e) e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy. Best regards Claus-Peter (not a lawyer, either) BearingPoint GmbH Geschäftsführer: Marcel Nickler (Vorsitzender), Hans-Werner Wurzel (stellv. Vorsitzender), Kiumars Hamidian, Matthias Loebich, Kai Wächter, Dr. Robert Wagner Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Beat Leimbacher Sitz: Frankfurt am Main Registergericht: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55490 The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 04/03/15 15:16, Reincke, Karsten wrote: In the past I was involved in some full discussions concerning the issue ‘reverse engineering and open source licenses’. Although personally esteeming and inspiring, such discussions sometimes became a bit explosive: If – at least – the LGPL-v2 indeed requires to allow the reverse engineering of those programs which use LGPL-v2 licensed components, then companies are not able to protect these ‘private’ programs against revealing the embedded business relevant secrets, even if they do not distribute the corresponding source code. And – as far as I know – at least some companies have therefore forbidden to link essential programs against the LGPL-v2. From my lay point of view, this appears to be under very limited conditions. My gut feeling is that the fact that you are in the EEC means that recipients have more rights to reverse engineer under EU law than they have under the terms of this licence, and both are trying to achieve similar aims, which is to allow third party code to interface with the software. I have taken the view that this ‘rule of reverse engineering’ cannot be applied in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs. By arguing that way, I caused astonishment and dissents. But often, I was The status of dynamically linked programs is a hot topic in the open source community. The Free Software Foundation, who created the GPL, essentially takes the view that dynamic linking has the same copyright status as static linking. A number of frequent posters on this list disagree with that interpretation. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
