A Beginner's Look At GPL Enforceability 112
sirmikester writes "I wrote a term paper for my University of Illinois law class about the enforceability of the GPL. Unlike most of the papers dealing with the GPL, this one was aimed at a primarily non-technical audience. While a little bit rough around the edges, I'm sure it could give all of the non-technical folks out there a look at the GPL, and why its so important to all of us. There is also a powerpoint presentation available of the speech that I gave to the class about the paper. "
What is OSS worth when you get right down to it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What is OSS worth when you get right down to it (Score:2)
Not to say open source can't be pretty. In fact, I'm going to go back to ogling the program I found this morning called filelight [methylblue.com]
Re:What is OSS worth when you get right down to it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What is OSS worth when you get right down to it (Score:2)
Re:What is OSS worth when you get right down to it (Score:2)
Re:What is OSS worth when you get right down to it (Score:2)
Case? (Score:2)
GPL-ed!?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Grammar nazi (Score:1)
wrong / on
Re:Grammar nazi (Score:1)
i guess
this was wrong
"wrong
I quit
Technicalities... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Conclusion bugs me (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't learn anything new from reading this, but there are those that might, as was stated by the submitter. In my opinion, telling the uninitiated simply that the GPL grants the right to use the code however you like, but if you decide to distribute it you have to agree to the contract stating that you'll give the source as well. If they have other questions, send them to the GNU.org philosophy page [gnu.org]
Re:Conclusion bugs me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Conclusion bugs me (Score:5, Informative)
A second article in the German American Law Journal claims to minimize the first article, but still includes the following juicy tidbit: [recht.us]
I think that this puts a very suscinct spin on the GPL validity question -- If you want to invalidate the GPL in court, it wouldn't be a case of having to defend the GPL de novo. As long as the underlying copyright is valid, it would be the violator under the gun to prove that the conditions of the GPL (placed on what would, otherwise, be a violation of copyright law) are somehow illegal -- and not very distinguishable from invalidating conditions that (for example) prevented publication of the source code.Re: (Score:1)
Oooops (Score:1)
Re:Oooops (Score:2)
Nice (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:2)
Not a problem. I already have passed it on to no technies. I'm actually one step ahead of you, as I've also passed it on to no non-techies.
Post in ASCII please (Score:1)
Re:Post in ASCII please (Score:2)
Definition of irony (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Definition of irony (Score:3, Funny)
No it isn't, unless you went to the Alanis Morissette school of irony [m-w.com].
Re:Definition of irony (Score:3, Informative)
"3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity"
I would expect researching and writing a paper on the gpl to result in using gpl'd software and non using powerpoint format. That's pretty incongruous with what actually happened. In fact, this event we're reading about seems to be marked quite strongly by that incongruity. How ironic.
PowerPoint? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:PowerPoint? (Score:2)
Perhaps because the primary audience of the presentation aren't OOo users?
Re:PowerPoint? (Score:2)
Love to, but... (Score:1)
Not a contract... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole paper appears to be centred around the idea that the GPL is a contract. Most people seem to think the GPL is actually a licence, not a contract - this kind of makes the whole paper useless, in my opinion, and is what led to the confused conclusion.
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ [lwn.net] is a useful discussion of the difference, once you accept it as a licence the whole discussion of "enforcability" kind of goes out of the window.
Re:Not a contract... (Score:2)
Re:Not a contract... (Score:2)
The GPL is not a contract. It does not require the licensee to give up any rights or properties in order to gain the permissions and privileges the GPL grants.
Re:Not a contract... (Score:2)
Re:Not a contract... (Score:1)
No, because they never had the right to share derivative works from someone else's copyrighted works in the first place.
Consider the following:
"Can I borrow your car?"
"Ok, but only if you don't drive it faster than 60 mph."
In this scenario, is the borrower "giving up" the right to drive the borrowed car faster than 60 mph?
Re:Not a contract... (Score:2, Troll)
Well, what matters isn't what 'most people think', but what the Law says, and what the lawyers and judges and think. The author of the paper makes a reasonable case to consider the GPL as a binding an enforceable contract.
The confused conclusion is a
Re:Not a contract... (Score:1)
The only "reasonable case" the author makes is that
However, he makes no argument as to whether it should be considered a contract or a license, nor what the difference would be.
Describing the consideration required in a contract, he says
short paper (Score:2)
Re:short paper (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but how many people can do that in Powerpoint? I mean, give the poor kid some credit, it's Powerpoint for cryin' out loud!
Re:short paper (Score:2)
Re:short paper (Score:2)
Re:short paper (Score:2)
I think you're expecting an in depth analysis of the GPL from a programmer and legal scholar's perspective. This was never the goal of the paper. I just wanted to write something that I could give to someone who knew nothing about programming and have them get
Re:short paper (Score:2)
Not so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no use (as is claimed in the paper) to say that the company had no right to distribute the software except under the GPL. That doesn't mean it's accepted the GPL by the act of distributing the software, if it has no knowledge of the GPL. That argument is like saying if I steal something, I must have agreed to buy it (since otherwise it would not be mine) and am in breach of contract for not paying for it. While someone distributing software without permission is in breach of copyright, it's different to distributing software in breach of the GPL. In the former, the copyright owner can stop distribution/use of the code, but he can't compel the distributer to release the source code, nor to hand over copyright in the modifications made to the code.
Re:Not so simple (Score:1)
Actually, it is that simple. (Score:2)
Copyright law says exactly this - If I create a work, I own the rights to it automatically, and no one can copy it, even if they don't know it's mine. The law does not require that I put a notice in my code in order for my ownership of that code to be protected.
".. am in breach of contract for not paying for it.
A recent discussion by someone else put it this way: If I own some land on a
Re:Actually, it is that simple. (Score:2)
I'm sorry, the GPL is undoubtedly a contract, since there is consideration from both sides. If it were a non-contractual license, it would have to be of the form "I give you the right to do X, without you having to do anything in return". Since the GPL expressly makes demands of both sides, it is a contractual license. It will only be binding on those who have notice of its terms.
To use your river example, if you decide to charge for fishing rights and make all sorts of conditions, then they will only be en
Re:Actually, it is that simple. (Score:2)
Re:Not so simple (Score:2)
WRONG! The GPL is exactly the same as copyright. The copyright owner can only stop the distribution/use of the code, just like you said. (They can also sue for cop
Consider changing "open source" to "free software" (Score:3, Interesting)
The open source movement did not exist at the time the GPL, copyleft, the free software movement, and the GNU project started. It seems odd, therefore, to give credit to a movement that had nothing to do with creating these documents and forming these ideas. As it stands, you appear to be using the terms "open source" and "free software" interchangably, as though they refer to the same thing. However the open source movement stands for a different philosophy than the free software movement [gnu.org].
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
In fact, from www.fsf.org: Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Re:Consider changing "open source" to "free softwa (Score:2)
Dear Valued Resident... (Score:2, Funny)
your ResNet account will be terminated for a period of 3 months.
If you feel this is too extreme a corrective measure,
you may appeal this decision to the OIT office.
Sincerely,
Campus Windows Admin
Interesting issues not mentioned (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/linux/gpl - ucc2b.html
How about trade secret protection? Might the Uniform Trade Secret Act (state laws) protect a company who is in violation of the GPL from having to
The GPL paper with powerpoint? (Score:1)
Re:The GPL paper with powerpoint? (Score:2)
It would, of course, be tragic if the University kicked him out for having an OpenOffice version of the file available...
Seriously - the department might short-sightedly require Microsoft(tm) PowerPoint(tm) files to be given to them, but I find it difficult to believe that actually developing or even presenting the slides on his own computer with OpenOffice would be forbidden...
Re:The GPL paper with powerpoint? (Score:2)
Don't know about most, but I bet these ones do.
Microsoft's Big Role on Campus [washingtonpost.com]
Gates to fund Cambridge scholarships [bbc.co.uk]
Gates Foundation Gives Record $70 Million for Genomics Research [washington.edu]
Re:The GPL paper with powerpoint? (Score:2)
(Many mathematicians at Cambridge certainly use Linux - Red Hat is usually the distro chosen, I think.)
not a contract (Score:4, Informative)
Check it out here
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031
"a lot of the confusion about the gpl stems from this central isue: Which is it? a license or a contract? The reason that matters is because if it's a contract, then you enforce it under contract law, which is enforced state by state, and there are certain necessary elements to qualify as a valid contract. If it's a license, then it's enforced under copyright law, and that's enforced on the federal level according to the terms of copyright law, not contract law. The penalties available are not the same."
[...]
"The gpl is unequivocally a license, and that's the truth."
Club On UIUC Campus to Discuss GPL (Score:2, Informative)
We just brought Brad Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation here to campus for a great introduction to GPL. His question and answer at the end of the speech discussed topics such as enforcement.
Anybody can listen to the speech here off our website [freesoftwaresociety.org], near the bottom. Its in, of course, a free-software supported codec format. (ogg)
Re:Club On UIUC Campus to Discuss GPL (Score:2)
I wish I had known about the club before I wrote my paper. It would have given me a chance to get some feedback from people knowledgable about the GPL and free software before I turned the paper in. Oh well, it was due so I had to turn in what I had...
Factual error about Section 2 of GPL (Score:2)
The GPL Section 2 says:
Re:Factual error about Section 2 of GPL (Score:2)
Re:Factual error about Section 2 of GPL (Score:1)
It has been established quite clearly that such in-house copying is not considered distribution.
There are further grey areas, though. What if, for example, I tweak a kernel, install it on my machine, and a few months down the track donate that machine to the local Salvation Army?
Presumably I would have cleaned out /home and, among other things, /usr/src. This certainly isn't in-house, and thus probably a violation of the authors' copyright.
Even MS turns a blind eye to this form of distribution, or at
Re:Factual error about Section 2 of GPL (Score:2)
If they distribute the software they do. And according to the FSF, if they merely distribute stuff that links to the software they do as well. And if RMS gets his way, GPL v 3 will also require publishing their source code if they merely use it in a server that clients can publicly access.
That leaves only using the software
Re:Factual error about Section 2 of GPL (Score:2)
I know. That wasn't the point.
"That leaves only using the software purely internally. That's not what companies are worried about, I don't think."
I think that is a much more common usage than you give credit. Most companies that aren't in the software business have no interest in distributing or publishing computer programs. They just want to use software that will monitor and analyze things in their factories, or controller programs to regulate stuff, or maybe p
Re: GPL and in-house distribution (Score:2)
You need to make the source code available only to those to whom you distribute the binary.
It seems to me that the requirements would be satisfied by putting the source code on any machine on which you also place the binary, or by placing the source code on a machine accessible by those machines on which the binary is placed, but not necessarily accessible by the outside world.
Re: GPL and in-house distribution (Score:2)
Contract? Enforce? (Score:2)
Re:Contract? Enforce? (Score:2)
Re:Contract? Enforce? (Score:2)
The difference is that if the GPL was an actual contract, the copyright holder could force you to uphold it.
This means that the original author could sue those making derivative copies to force them to release their source code changes.
They can't.
All they can do now is sue them to prevent them from continuing to use the code.
For example, if I were to release source code under a license that gave me
Re:Contract? Enforce? (Score:1)
Over a hundred comments and this is the first 'IANAL' I've seen yet.
I was wondering...
Re:Contract? Enforce? (Score:2)
GPL code is protected by copyright law, and if someone is usi
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Intel x86/Windows XP" would be an accurate description of what are otherwise known as "Wintel" systems; the combination of the Windows XP operating system with the Intel x86 hardware platform. (As opposed to an "AMD/Windows XP" system, for example.)
Similarly, "GNU/Linux" is an accurate description of a GNU system running on top of the Linux kernel. (As opposed to a
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:1)
I think I'll start calling my laptop's software "system" Mozilla/Windows.
It'd be, like, a totally accurate description of my 'system'.
-Adam
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
Anyway, I'm bored so I'll have a look at your site.
Hello...
While I am frustrated by the speed and limitations of Visual Basic, I have found it to be a competant language. The bulk of my programs are therefore written in VB 6.
Bwahahahaha! It's a good thing we have you around to make the fine distinction for us between an app and the OS. And that's compet*e*nt by the way.
You ma
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
I use Windows as my primary workstation (job requirement). I do use FreeBSD, Linux, and other Unix machines where they are better suited for a given task.
Don't assume that because I use windows, and previously programmed mostly in VB that I know very little about this subject.
-Adam
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:1)
Yes. In the 1980s, RMS concieved the idea of a complete Unix-like system that would be Free Software [gnu.org]:
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
The problem with GNU (and Microsoft, btw) is that they want to call everything the operating system. Thus the FSF calls Gnome a part of The GNU System, even though it's now the default desktop for Solaris and runs perfectly fine under all POSIX/X11 systems. In that same article you mentioned he talks about games. Are games part of operating systems, or merely applications
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
Thats the worst definiton of an operating system I've ever heard. For one thing, it doesn't define "usable". Theres alot of definitions of "operating system" and it's really a semantic issue. And, of course, just because something is part of the "GNU System" doesn't mean that it's an essential part of an OS.
You can easily
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
In the Southern US, it is common to call all soda/pop/soda pop/whatever Coke.
Waitress: What do y'all want to drink?
Me: A Coke
Waitress: What kind?
Me: Coke
Waitress: OK!
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:3, Insightful)
GNU make available the main elements of an OS for free (or some useful helper utilities, make whatever distinction you want, it doesn't really matter for the purpose of my argument) and they request that you include them in the name of the OS.
Now, you have several choices.
Ethically "pure" ones:
* Gratefully use the software they've provided for free and agree to their modest request
* Decide that they're on a power trip and decline to use their software
Ethically slightly grey:
* Use their software,
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
I'm sorry. I realize my error now. At what point, when Linus was originally using the GNU utilities, did 'GNU' request that he include the name 'GNU' in any future OS he creates that contains or uses those utilities?
Never?
So now that Linux is somewhat mains
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
No, it is a polite request. There is no "must". You don't have to agree to it! But if you decide not to, please don't whine and moan like a little girl about it. You have to grow up sometime!
And don't try to tell me what I should call it (Linux usually, but after listening to you whine about it I'm seriously considering GNU/Linux).
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
Linus created an OS you say? Which one?
I know he wanted to create an OS, and started with the kernel. Then he simply took the complete GNU system and used it with his kernel (which wasn't so trivial, it took work which both the fsf and linus did.) This is not a bad thing: GNU was meant to be taken away and used like that.
However, what results is a GNU system. A Linux based GNU system, as RMS calls it, but still a GNU system. There are historic reasons RMS didn't ask Lin
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
No, just as you shouldn't call a BSD system which uses gcc and bash GNU/BSD. This is however not comparable, Windows is a running system without GNU (as you say, you'd only use the tools, which is only part of the system.) Linux is not. It is nothing without libc, and not much without bash.
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2)
I'm glad you have ethics so completely wrapped up like that. You should go publish a paper on the definition of "ethically pure", you'll be famous!
Respect for the community is good to share. (Score:2)
How ironic that your demand to give GNU no credit at all is worded so strongly. The FSF asks you to give GNU a share of the credit [gnu.org], it is not a demand. Lots of people (including Debian, one of the most respected GNU/Linux distributions) choose to do so out of respect for creating the free software community and the GNU General Public License. This is not a trademark infringement.
GNU is an operating system, it was designed to be so right from the start [google.com], just as the Linux kernal was designed to be a kern
Re:Respect for the community is good to share. (Score:1)
> The FSF asks you to give GNU a share of the credit, it is not a demand
But... I see credits to them. Everyday. Look :
That's not like people don't know where the software come from...
> GNU is an operating system
Fine. Please show me the operating system hidden in the GNU tools. I looked and saw this :
Origin of "Linux" name (Score:1)
Re:Trademarks must be respected... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are other reasons [uklinux.net] to stop prepending things to the OS name, by the way...
My take on this : Stallman (who recently did a speech in my area, and didn't forget to tell us that ``GNU is the operating system and Linux is its kernel'' amongst other questionable things, like Open Source is not about freedom. He must have overlooked the Open Source Definition [opensource.org]...) has seen the Linux OS gain lots of attention, and he's disgruntled people talk less about the GNU project. Still, he's wrong in thinking this cause