Ask an Attorney About Open Source Licensing 181
I first ran into Daniel B. Ravicher on the Open Source Initiative's license-discuss email list. He's a rarity: a young lawyer actively interested in and sympathetic to Open Source licensing. In fact, he wrote a detailed article on this topic for the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology last year while he was still in law school. Dan is now an associate at Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, a firm that handles, among other things, business law and intellectual property matters. Who better to ask about Open Source under the law? (The usual attorney disclaimer applies, of course -- that Dan can only answer general law questions, and if you want specific legal advice you must directly engage an attorney yourself.) One question per post, please. Tomorrow we'll forward 10 of the highest moderated ones to Dan by email, and put up his answers as soon as we get them back.
Re:GPL and low level code (Score:1)
Licenses are about relationships, not code (Score:1)
If I create a program from scratch, my relationship to that program is "owner". I can make derivative works, make copies, give copies to other people, sell copies to other people, anything at all.
If I publish that program under the GPL, and you download a copy, your relationship to that program is "GPL licensee". You can do anything with the program that the GPL allows.
And if I sell another copy of that program as a commercial project to Joe Blow, Joe's relationship to that program is "commercial licensee". Joe can do anything that Joe's license allows. The terms of that license are between Joe and me.
The Qt Public License (Score:1)
GPL and libraries (Score:1)
Another example which is confusing to me is GPL software bundled with Solaris 8. Sun now ships bash as a part of the OS and a completely supported application. They also ship the source, as required by GPL. But the GPL also says this:
bash is linked with libc. From reading the above paragraph, I would say that anyone except Sun may distribute bash binary for Solaris without distributing libc source, because of the OS component exception. But since Sun distributes bash and libc together, Sun would have to distribute libc under GPL too. So how come they don't do that?
grade: 5 / 10 (Score:1)
Your post, unfortunately makes some obviously false statements:
- GNOME's addition to the kernel
- Linux's license lending to abuse (the BSD license is far more abusable)
If you really want to generate venomous responses, concentrate on highly divisive assertions based in truth. For example:
"As the Linux kernel becomes more bloated and unwieldy, its developers have resorted to stealing more BSD code just to keep pace."
Thanks to all of you trolls for your attention in this matter.
Civil Disobedience (Score:3)
Many people download from Napster, reverse engineer software like DeCSS, etc. Are there any general legal strategies, etc., that can be used to limit one's liability while still publishing information on things like cryptography?
Alternatively, how would one go about constructing a straw-man case most likely to overturn the DMCA's restriction on publication of said material?
How to reduce legal boilerplate to one src line? (Score:3)
GPL and mis-use of copyright law (Score:5)
Derivative works (Score:2)
What complicates things is when he submits an entire file for you to add to your program. This entire file is itself copyrightable by that user, since it is not derived from your own source code, and you must abide by whatever license that user set forth or else exclude that file from your program. This is the case with the Linux kernel, where many files are copyrighted individually by their individual authors.
-E
Equations *ARE* speech (Score:2)
A description of the program and what it does (i.e. source code), is just as much speech as a paper describing how to build an atomic bomb -- which, BTW, was a test case a few years back. See: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/neutronics/todd/nuc.bo mb.html [berkeley.edu]
-E
Supremacy Clause and shrinkwrap "no review" terms. (Score:5)
Re:Validity of non-sign agreements (Score:3)
Of course, this only applies to licenses that are a grant of copyright rights like the GPL. Licenses that take away rights (such as the "no reverse engineering" clause in nearly every piece of commercial software) are another story; this is why the industry is trying so hard to get UCITA passed.
Re:IBM? (Score:1)
--
I noticed
What of dumping? (Score:5)
Now what of antitrust law? Yes, we're doing this for the good of humanity, but larger institutions could (especially in the eyes of the courts) use Free Software as a way to quickly drown competitors. Could a company be held liable for releasing free software, especially if it's a "category killer" that makes the proprietary competition irrelevant?
Would the fact that the competition can build on the released codebase help matters any?
--
I noticed
open source version/proprietary version (Score:2)
A possible strategy for making a profitable business based on open source software development would be to write an application, release it to the public under an open source license (e.g. the GPL), and then sell to other companies the right to use the application without the GPL's restrictions.
But what happens when other people, not associated with your company, start contributing bugfixes or improvements to the open source version? Can you sell your customers the right to use these patches in a way that violates the GPL, or are the patches effectively copyrighted by their respective authors and transferred to you under the GPL?
What if you were to keep the open source and the proprietary versions separate and you only sell licenses to use the proprietary version -- does this mean you cannot ever implement a bugfix in the proprietary version that someone has committed to the public version?
Zooko
US Law on European citizen (Score:2)
GPL Sturdiness (Score:3)
Realistically, if it came down to a fight in court, what do you believe are the chances the Gnu General Public License would be upheld and enforced? (And please don't answer with, "It depends" :-).)
Schwab
Re:Conversion of GPL'd Projects To Proprietary (Score:2)
What is more interesting: is it his prerogative to change the license and not release new additions under the GPL even though it is a derivative work of his GPLed code? I think so, because he never had to accept the GPL himself and thus falls back on his rights as author.
Or even: is he obligated to give you the sources (at the cost of distribution) just because the code was GPLed? I actually think he does not have to do that, again because he never had to accept the GPL himself for his own code.
Written word or intent? (Score:4)
In Dutch law, you cannot demand - for example - a brand computer for $9.95 if it's a misprint of $995, because it should have been obvious that you could not get a brand new computer for ten bucks.
I wonder how important this would be in the case of open source licenses and particulary the GPL, since its mere existance comes forth from a philosophy and releasing code under the GPL usually is done because the author supports that (GNU's) philosophy.
Multiple Licenses (Score:2)
How best to respond to legal threats (Score:5)
Re:Where does the interest come from? (Score:3)
If it's not clear where my heart is, let me just mention that I had UNIX on my license plate for 3 years. But in my "old age" I've become less interested in code and more interested in arguing
Chad
Contributor Agreements (Score:5)
We want the agreement to accomplish three things:
- Stipulate that the code is being released to the project under the project's license (for our project this is the Apache License).
- Ensure that the contributor has permission to release the intellectual property to the project, including any necessary permission from their employer.
- Make sure that the contributor does not apply for patents for the code that they're submitting.
My question is:- Do you see legal value in this sort of agreement?
- Do you know of any boilerplate agreements that exist?
- Shouldn't more Open Source projects be worried about IP issues that a contributor agreement seeks to prevent?
Thanks!Re:Public Domain (Score:2)
To summarise, what's the most effective means of doing a public service without risk of being sued for your efforts?
Validity of non-sign agreements (Score:2)
Re:Open Source License (Score:2)
"Free software" licensing is designed to protect the intellectual property (or maybe just ordinary property) rights of the owner, while still granting the public an unrestricted right to use the software. Public domain software is essentially the same thing as free, but without the intellectual property protection.
If you want to distribute software, but not unconditionally, then yes, you would need to license it. That's what a license is for, to set the terms under which you make you property available to others. I don't think the need for licenses has anything do do with the real or imagined existence of a "litigation crazed atmosphere in the US" (not that i believe it is imagined), but with the universaly accepted concept of "ownership" and how an owner can protect their property which is made availble to others.
Can my employer force me to patent an idea? (Score:2)
How can we change perceptions? (Score:4)
Open Source License Enforcement (Score:5)
Re:Doesn't the GPL "infect" all derivitives? (Score:3)
You can license your own product under multiple licenses. Commercial vendors do this all this time with proprietary code. You can also release a product under multiple Open Source licenses. If you are the copyright holder, you control the licenses.
Now, you can't retroactively change the licensing of version 1.0 or any other released versions to a non-GPL license, because you've already got a binding license agreement with your users. However, any future releases of the software can be licensed as the author sees fit.
On the other hand, if you accept GPL'ed patches, and you don't get copyright from the patch owner, and you don't get their permission to relicense the work, then you are in violation of the GPL as it applies to their works.
Re:Where does the interest come from? (Score:2)
I think of the open source movement as the software analogue to the ACLU. They are necessary to counteract overly acquisitive folks who want to trample our rights. Sometimes they do things I can't support, but in general, their existence is necessary to balance the existence of their opponents.
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the GPL, or of Mr. Stallman. And he isn't much of a fan of mine. But my original interest in open source stems from having used programs that are open source, and having coded in the past. I may not get anything out of it, but I do support the EFF, and the open source community... even if they think I'm evil sometimes.
And you know, open source guys do like patents sometimes... you'd be surprised at how many folks whose code is in the kernel have applied for patents...
Thalia
Re:Demand for Technical Lawyers? (Score:2)
But to be a good (and happy) IP lawyer, you should like to write papers (things like documentation natch!), research, and listen well.
And, of course, you may lose some of the respect of your peers. There will be those who think you sold out... so think carefully.
Thalia
Slightly OT, but an answer re: your post... (Score:3)
Three years ago my friend started a protracted court battle, over all things, the rights regarding an easement to get to a house he bought. The case was long and complicated, and basically boiled down to one asshole thinking he could change the rules, and with enough money, overcome my friend.
Now, my friend is a truck driver - not rich by any means, but one of the best individuals you could ever know. He would truely give you the shirt off his back - both figuratively, and literally. I have seen him do things and help people, strangers even, just because it was the right thing to do. Anyhow - he didn't have a lot of money, but he knew he wasn't going to let this guy cave him in over a simple road (because that is what it boiled down to - a road to the top of the mountain upon which the house sits).
He went into debt - HUGE DEBT. He had the family supporting him, in every way - food, friendship, housing (he has lived under his mother-in-law's house, in the basement apartment, for those years), even money in those times when we could get him to take a little (he is very proud, and will not take handouts - ya gotta sneak em in). He worked every day, and weekends (still does, gotta pay the lawyers), sometime pulling 24 hour shifts for a couple of days - most of the time working 12-16 hour days. Sometimes I would ride with him - to talk to him, keep him awake on the weekends, tell him something to keep his spirits up.
In the end, he is coming out of it winning - he has spent a lot of money, but his hard work and perseverence has paid off, and he will have a very nice house to retire in, indeed. He deserves it, more than I can ever convey.
So, it is possible - if you think you are right, you should pursue it. You may have to work yourself to death, maybe take a second job, who knows what else - but defending your rights and what you believe in is never an easy job - if it were, far fewer people would have died throughout history defending those ideals...
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:GPL Sturdiness (Score:2)
The key is to find a one-handed lawyer, so he can't say, "On the other hand...". Does this lawyer have two hands?
--
Re:Open Source License Enforcement (Score:2)
Just my two cents worth.
May be a repeat, but..... (Score:2)
No lawyer needed to answer this question: (Score:2)
1) You create program "Foo v1.0", release under GPL
2) You change string "Hello World" to "Goodbye World", and release "Foo v2.0", under MS-License.
You are totally within all your rights to do this. You "own" Foo, and release it to *OTHERS* under GPL. When you make changes to *your* code, and re-release, life is good.
However, consider the following:
1.5) HelpfulUser submits a modification to you which adds a feature. They give you license to use that code as GPL.
...in this case, you *cannot* relicense your code with their code under a more proprietary license than the GPL. That's because it's not all your code.
For your last question: "Why can't a user of the Windows version sue for the source code, citing the GPL on the *NIX version? Why doesn't the GPL on the *NIX version trump the proprietary license on the Windows version?"
From m-w: License: a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful
It is unlawful to run code that belongs to other people without their permission. Usually companies give users a license (permission) to use their code, and it is totally legit for the *owner* of the code to discriminate (or place restrictions on it's use) when letting other people use it.
--Robert
minarets (Score:2)
Although I don't know what they would be doing weaving those either.
-your friendly grammar nazi,
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Re:Open Source License Enforcement (Score:2)
How Can We be More Effective? (Score:5)
What can we do as a community to be more effective in protecting ourselves. I'm someone who has joined the EFF, written letters to the copyright office, participated heavily on Openlaw, and written letters to my Congressmen. Many of us are involved in these ways, but somehow we've got to take it up a notch. What's the next step?
Patent legalese (Score:2)
Yet the patent law requires inventions to be described in a way that one who "is of ordinary skill in the subject" (ie of the invention, not the wired patent law language) has to be able to read the patent and be able to understand it .... arguably this would invalidate the bulk of the patents written today .... but I doubt one could actually get such a ruling in the current climate .... many houses of cards would come tumbling down.
So my question .... has the concept of publishing patents in order to share the idea so that society as a whole can progress faster really just become something that we pay lip service to? or is maybe Open Source a return to that more idealistic age when people did read others patents and learned form them? or maybe to something more like the middle ages when things like the making of stained glass was kept under trade secret status, while music was freely available to anyone who could whistle?
Code as Speech (Score:2)
If this is the case then how can source code be both a literary work and anything less than speech?
It would seem to me that either code is speech or it is not copyrightable.
DeCSS (Score:2)
-------------
Open Source and Patents (Score:2)
Re:Open Source License Enforcement (Score:2)
I can't very well go to court and say "You are stealing my property and costing me money" and thus sue for money lost
Nope, you wouldn't have necessarily lost money, but perhaps that party gained money from your work without following the license. So this is similar to the RIAA's complaints that you haven't necessarily emptied a record store of it's inventory, but by duplicating copyrighted material that they lose on sales. Your corollary would be that they worked with your code, and didn't pay you back by releasing their changes.
I could see suing for a fair chunk of their revenue from that product, and forcing them to releasing their changes to the code.
Re:It's not just speech (Score:2)
Until source code is compiled, it's just a bunch of text. And like any text, it expresses ideas. Judge Kaplan and the inventors of the DMCA didn't seem to realize that. I can publish instructions on how to make a bomb - that's protected by the First Amendment. Actually making and using a bomb is a different story altogether. The source code to DeCSS should be no different, yet the court system has a hard time understanding that.
--
Lord Nimon
Can we use the DMCA to our advantage? (Score:4)
--
Lord Nimon
When will source code be considered speech? (Score:5)
--
Lord Nimon
Trademark issues for open source alternatives ... (Score:2)
I have noticed that many open source projects are started as an alternative to a closed source product. For, example, from the looks of it, OASIS (an open sourc ad server), seems to be started by folks who wanted a better, open-source alternative to RealMedia's OAS (open AdStream). The name is very similar; likewise, *-GL or *-GLX seems to be the norm for Open-GL clones. From what I read on Slashdot and elsewhere, it seems SGI is more than happy to sue some of those *GL[X]? folks for trademark infringement.
So, I guess, my question is: if you create an open-source project that is designed to compete with a commercial product, and you name is similar (like OASIS vs. OAS), what liabilities might you have in terms of trademark infringement? What is the likelyhood that a trademark holder would have the grounds to sue? Are there any legal tests/thresholds to determine this? Well-known federal case-law?
Re:Helping avoid contributory and vicarios liabili (Score:2)
What you say is true (I think), but the question delt with needing clarification concerning the EEF's lawyer (in the link) saying "Open Source" is one way to insulate yourself from this liability.
Posting source capable of infringement (whether intentional or not -- even if modification of the code is required), by your definition of "contributory", would aid and abet an infringing activity.
Helping avoid contributory and vicarios liability (Score:5)
In that, he states guidelines for developers. One of the guidelines is: "Be open source".
I would think Open Source would set you up for liability in such matters: anybody who modified your code, making it able to infringe on copyrights, would make you vicariously liable for opening the code in the first place.
Or, take for example, TiVo. Their systems are open source, they've posted their kernel and tool modifications on their web site (as per the GPL). Now they're worried that someone could use that to easily create code that will allow MPEG extraction from the unit [avsforum.com] (and widespread distribution of copyrighted materials).
I'm not sure how being open source can protect a software developer from such litigation.
Can you explain this?
Distributed Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Images and Sounds (Score:2)
He's not licensing it (Score:2)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
To What Extent Is "Contamination" Real? (Score:2)
Many people talk about "contamination". For example, they will say things like, "if you are writing a compiler you cannot look at the source for gcc because it will contaminate you and you might later be held liable for GPL violation".
I'm inclined to believe that this is FUD on the part of the Free Software community designed to make proprietary developers overly shy about getting ideas from other people's sources and/or to convince them that they need to GPL their work if they get ideas from GPL'd works.
Unless your work can be shown to be plainly derivative of the GPL'd work, I find it hard to imagine that there could be any legitimate claim of "contamination".
As a non-programming example, let me cite the recent "The Wind Done Gone" case. This was a violation of "Gone With The Wind" copyright because it used characters and places from GWTW. However, if the author had simply written a Southern novel, or made passing reference to Tara, or even done a parody of GWTW it would have been OK. In the case of a parody, the author would have certainly read all of GWTW but the parody would be considered a separate work.
Likewise, if I read all the source for gcc, but create a totally different compiler from scratch using compiler algorithms that are generally known, and have a complete understanding of the working of the compiler as an independant work, and do not do any cut-n-paste from gcc, I don't see how any charge of "contamination" can be levied.
Also, I have never heard of "contamination" in music, film, or other intellectual persuits. Except of course that there are limits on "sampling" which is analogous to cut-n-paste.
As a side note, how do you feel about copyrights on "snippets". For example, some people have tried to pass off Duff's Device as GPL, when the original USENET correspondance made no mention of GPL.
I'm of the opinion that code less than a certain length shouldn't be copyrighted, but placed in the public domain. However, *can* such short code be copyrighted? Is there any precedent in music (such as copyrighted "riffs") or film (such as attempts to copyright a camera technique, e.g., the "Matrix" pan).
Re:Open Source License Enforcement (Score:3)
AFAIK, you can ensure that you can collect some damages by registering your copyright with the Copyright and Trademark office. Every work is inherently copyright by its authors unless they explicitly place it into the public domain, but without registering it they're only allowed to collect real damages, i.e. proven economic losses resulting from the infringement. If it's registered, though, they're allowed to collect statutory damages, which are specific fines established by law as a punishment for violation. Also, IIRC, once you've won your case the violator has to stop distributing in violation of copyright, and if they continue to infringe then you can collect more in the way of damages.
Re:No funds, no change of winning? (Score:2)
No funds, no change of winning? (Score:4)
I obviously don't have the funds to compete in the courtroom with Big Corporation X, and even if I were to try, the expense and time alone would set me into debt for probably the greater part of the rest of my life. What chance does the GPL or any other Open Source licensed software have, if a good part of it's development team is composed of just average guys with bills, debt and little free time?
Re:Not really relevant. (Score:2)
Junkbusters' Spamoff (Score:5)
I'm not money hungry, but I do detest spam.
Demand for Technical Lawyers? (Score:4)
I would like to know how much demand exists in the field of law for a person with a skill set and background comparable to my own. Can the current market for lawyers who possess a deep technical background offset the cost of three years of law school, especially in comparison to what I would be making if I stayed with technology consulting?
Judging from the sheer number of issues surrounding technology and the law raised in this forum, it seems that the open source/technology community could certainly benefit from more advocates with roots in technology. I'm just deciding whether it's worth it to make the move myself...
Conversion of GPL'd Projects To Proprietary (Score:2)
The author has since removed any reference to the GPL in his latest releases, and is now using a proprietary license.
I would like to take the GPL'd version of the code which he previously released and use it as a base for a continued open source project, but I'm not sure that I can legally do that if the author objects- after all, I'll be using his code to "compete" with his own commercial "fork" of the project.
Can I fork his code to start my own project?
Re:Helping avoid contributory and vicarios liabili (Score:2)
Anyway. vicarious liability requires that you BENEFIT from the infringment and that you can STOP the infringing activity. Contributory liability requires that you intentionally AID and ABET an infringing activity.
There doesn't appear to be contributory or vicarious liability for DMCA violations as far as I can tell.
If they don't draw the line somewhere, the RIAA could sue the power companies that provide electricity to Napster users...
Re:Can we use the DMCA to our advantage? (Score:2)
I am not a laywer, ask one for legal advice.
Re:Validity of non-sign agreements (Score:2)
I could theoretically get GPL'd software, and ignore the license (no, *I* would never do such a thing, this is a HYPOTHETICAL argument), as long as I don't try to copy (including allowing a copy to be made in RAM) or modify the program, or perform any of the "exclusive rights" under 17 USC. I can use the CD as a drink coaster without any legal liability. But anything else, including actually running the program could potentially be an infringement.
I am not a lawyer, ask one for real advice.
Re:Helping avoid contributory and vicarios liabili (Score:2)
OSS Coding On The Job (Score:2)
If I write free software in my spare time but my employer finds out about it and disapproves, what can they do about it? Would using e-mail for the project constitute some kind of violation of corporate resources? Could I be fired? Would I have to stop working on it even if it's during my own time? Could I be sued?
Question (Score:2)
What is your opinion on the DeCSS court case involving 2600 Magazine and the MPAA? Do you think that DeCSS itself is legal? Should linking be legal?
------------
advice for potential lawyers (Score:2)
Microsoft Licensing (Score:5)
37. For instance, under the first sale doctrine, an owner of a piece of software can transfer her program to whomever and for whatever she desires. The use of a license prevents this doctrine from applying, which allows computer programming firms to price-discriminate between customer characteristics. If Microsoft wants to give Windows software to public schools at a cost blow the production cost and the transaction consummates a sale, the first sale doctrine would apply, and the school could resell the programs at a higher price to a corporation, retaining the difference. This would cause Microsoft to charge all customers one price, either by lowering its price, forcing it to run at a loss, or raising its price, thus making the program unavailable to schools and other meagerly funded organizations. This result is economically inefficient and would most assuredly be politically unpopular.
I am interested on the implications of the fact of Microsofts monopoly in as it applies to licensing. While it can be argued that the two issues are separate, and one is not relevant to the other, many people look at the practices of Microsoft in this regard and view it with horror and contempt. Are there instances where such licensing practices impose a non-legitimate enforcment of "rights", and in fact constitute improper maintenance of a monopoly? Or do people have these separate issues confused, when they should be treated separately?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
What are ... (Score:5)
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Re:Public Domain (Score:2)
US IP versus European IP standards (Score:2)
Unless there is synchronisation between the difference sovereign territories in these issues how does the US or the EEC hope to enforce the issues of copyright and IP in other jurisdictions?
Obviously without the issue going to a court there is no precedence for these issues directly. So I assume parallels from the state of current legislation for music, video and literature will be the basis. But these have not worked well in the past when considered on an international basis. Is there any hope of agreement for a single standard?
Re:Doesn't the GPL "infect" all derivitives? (Score:2)
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives?
Every analogy breaks down if you try to stretch it too far. This is where the GPL-as-virus analogy breaks down. Always keep this in mind: the GPL is not a virus. Like a virus in some ways, yes. But different in others.
In fact, it's probably best not to think of the GPL as applying to software at all. The GPL does not apply to software; it applies to people. It tells people what they can and cannot do. It's about software, of course; it tells people what they can and cannot do with a particular piece of software. As a convenience we talk about GPL'ed software, and know what we mean. But, ultimately, the GPL applies to people, not software.
Now, there's some dispute about whether the GPL is a contract or a unilateral transfer of rights, but assume for the sake of argument it's a contract. (The analysis, for these purposes, is pretty much the same if it's a unilateral transfer of rights, but I find it's easier to think about as a contract.)
In the GPL, the author gives the user permission to use his code. In exchange, the user agrees to a) make the source available, if he makes the binaries available, and b) allow any derivative works to be licensed according to the GPL.
So, the GPL can be thought of as a contract between the author and the user. If several users license the software under the GPL, you can think of several independent (but identical) contracts existing, one for each user.
Now, keep in mind that the parties in a contract are not interchangeable. Suppose I contract a roofer to do roofing work on my house, in exchange for which I will pay him a certain amount of money. Suppose instead, I do roofing work on the roofer's house, and he pays me money--neither of us have fulfilled the terms of our contract. Likewise, the author and the user are not interchangeable in the GPL, and the author is under no obligation to release derivatives of his own work under the GPL.
Similarly, the author can release his GPL'ed code under a non-GPL license to, say, Microsoft, and then Microsoft can do with it whatever is permitted by that particular non-GPL license--distribute binaries without source, or create non-GPL'ed derivative works, if it's permitted by the non-GPL license. This follows easily as long as you keep in mind that a) the GPL applies to people, not software, and b) the parties in the GPL are not interchangeable. The user cannot license the software to Microsoft under a non-GPL license, of course, because that is prohibited by the GPL. But the author's obligations under the GPL are not the same as the user's obligations--the two parties to a contract are not interchangeable--and distributing the software under a non-GPL license is not prohibited to the author.
That's not to say there couldn't be a contract which does prevent the author from distributing his software under any license other than that particular one. But the GPL is not that license.
Re:Doesn't the GPL "infect" all derivitives? (Score:2)
Re:How can we change perceptions? (Score:3)
Images and Sounds (Score:5)
Specifically, I'm concerned about the images and sounds that are included with a game I'm working on [mugu.org].
Does the GPL "contaminate" these other files that are included? If so, how do "source" and "binary" distribution apply to images and sounds.
Thanks,
K45
Variations on a theme... (Score:5)
We have several licensing schemes available for the Open Source enthusiast, all dependant upon one's definition of 'Open Source'. Would you care to comment on each of these licenses, and their various pro's and con's?
Off the top of my head: GPL, QT Open Source, Public Domain, BSD.. most likely others.
Re:minarets (Score:2)
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
Re:Where does the interest come from? (Score:2)
Thanks for the insightful response. In retrospect, I should have been more careful, separating GNU/GPL and Open Source, but in the eyes of myself and many other programmers I know, the lines between them are blurred somewhat.
I haven't been able to figure out which parts of the GPL Open Source folks find objectional, and you've offered some insight there. I lean more towards the purist side myself, having read Mr. Stallman's work for several years, and currently working on FSF projects.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
Where does the interest come from? (Score:4)
- street cred
- humanity
- code review
- inspiration
- bug squashing
I was wondering what could inspire a lawyer to believe in these sentiments enough to become involved with open source software.Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
Will Open Source be overpowered by cash? (Score:5)
This seems to be one of the current trends in intellectual property law. Do you think it will continue?
Don't need a lawyer for this one (Score:2)
That's what the FSF is for (Score:2)
UCITA and liability (Score:5)
Big ballpark hypothetical (Score:5)
Okay, some unknown hacker creates his/her foo application and releases the source under GPL. Something occurs that leads him/her to suspect that the foo source has been incorporated into a commercial product that isn't following the terms of the GPL with regards to rereleasing the source. Furthermore, the things that lead him/her to suspect this aren't basic paranoia -- someone with a conscience and access to the suspect source has leaked information about it or whatnot. Or maybe something else -- point is, there is a case that could be made.
From a PRACTICAL standpoint, what sort of things would this unknown hacker have to do to make their case? Would it be possible from a practical point of view under (eg) the United States legal system for this unknown hacker to take the company to court? What sorts of costs would he/she incur? What sort of time-frame would it take to achieve resolution? What sorts of potential rewards or compensation could he/she expect? Are there any precedents that are analogous to this situation?
Public Domain (Score:5)
1) I have to explicitly state that the source is in the public domain, otherwise it is copyrighted by default,
2) anybody else adding to or modifying the source would have to state that their mods are in the public domain (for the same reason),
3) if a person adding to or modifying the source wants to copyright their mods, they'd have to specify the extent of their changes or their copyright might be invalid, unless they substantially changed the whole thing.
If one intends for a work to be freely editable, it seems as though the only thing you give up by putting it in the public domain is some legal basis to sue. For example if somebody takes my public domain work and slaps their name and copyright notice on it, I may not have a good way to stop them although their copyright is invalid.
Is this correct? Any comments?
Changes to the GPL? (Score:5)
Patents and GPL (Score:3)
1. You take a GPLed product, and extend it. You add some patented code into it.
2. You sell it to someone, and you give them the source code as the GPL requires.
3. However, since the GPL doesn't cover the execution of the code, you tell them that the only way they can get a license to execute the patented code is by never releasing the source or binaries to anyone else.
4. And anyone else who got the code downstream would have the right to have the source code, but not the right to execute it since that would be a patent violation.
Does this mean that a company can use patents to "close" GPLed code?
Possible liabilities for end-users? (Score:4)
Re:UCITA and liability (Score:3)
Doesn't the GPL "infect" all derivitives? (Score:5)
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives? There are examples of GPL code that was simultaniously released under a different license, and examples of GPL code that was the basis for derivative works that were not released under the GPL. Please explain how this is legal, under the GPL.
Several Slashdotters have said things like "Naturally, the author is free to do this" but I don't see the "natural" connection. If I release version 1.0 under the GPL, my reading of the GPL is that the "virus" infects all versions of the code, and that if I tried to release version 2.0 under a proprietary license then someone else could sue me because my version 2.0 violated the GPL on version 1.0. Yes, I'm the author and I hold all the rights, but when I release my code under the GPL I give up some of my rights and transfer them to the software's users. Don't the people to whom I gave those rights in version 1.0 retain those rights to all subsequent versions? If not, why not? The only way I can see for anybody, even the original author, to modify GPL code and not release the new source is to not release the new binarys either.
Similarly, I don't understand how I, as author of the code, could possibly release it under the GPL and another license at the same time. Why doesn't the GPL trump the other license? If A can get the source under the GPL and do whatever they want with it, and I sell the same code under another license to B, what prevents B from using the GPL to give the code away to whomever B wants, even though B didn't buy it under the GPL?
The specific example is a company that releases their *NIX version under the GPL but releases a Windows version of the same code under a proprietary license with no source code. Why can't a user of the Windows version sue for the source code, citing the GPL on the *NIX version? Why doesn't the GPL on the *NIX version trump the proprietary license on the Windows version?
Re:Conversion of GPL'd Projects To Proprietary (Score:2)
Re:Public Domain (Score:2)
A single line modification is not effectively copyrightable. Any use of such a small change is fair use. Claiming copyright on it would be a fraud against the people who are thus restricted from using it.
OTOH, adding 20 lines which significantly change the function of a program (such as fixing a bug) would enable the modifier to claim copyright on his change.
(IANAL)
--
Regardless... (Score:2)
Applying it to a legal document is like applying a car warranty to a candy bar. Even if both sides agree to it, it doesn't make any damn sense, and won't mean a thing in court.
--
Public Domain (Score:4)
--
embeded systems (Score:2)
Does it need to be GPL?
Am I distributing the software when I put my machine for anyone to use on a public palce?
And what if I sell the jukebox?
Do I need to make my source code avaiable?
GPL and low level code (Score:2)
Re:Dude, it's a license (Score:2)
The FSF insists that because it's far more difficult for them to pursue GPL violators in the legal system if they're not the 'owner' of the code. People can release code under the GPL without signing it over to the FSF, but then it's their responsiblity to enforce the GPL, not the FSF's responsibility. With a program like GNU Emacs, not signing the copyright over to the FSF would lead to a gradual erosion in their control over the code.
Public (government) code and the GPL (Score:4)