[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Paul Weaver wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> You may have paid for a licence to use software and paid for some
> >> media to transport that software to your machine(s), but you only
> >> own software you have written yourself (and if you release that
> >> under the GPL, you're the author but no longer the owner anyway).
> >
> > You "own" it as much as if you didn't release it under the GPL.
>
> ? Sorry, untrue (and confusing). The licensee does not own any software.
>
> Don't confuse author, owner and licensee. The licensee does not own
> anything.
True
> The author gives away "ownership" when using a copyleft
> licence.
Not at all, they grant people permission to copy their work according to
the terms of the GPL. They still own copyright on the work.
Once the work has been copied under terms of the GPL, then those terms
stick.
All the GPL is is an OPTIONAL license that allows you to copy the
licensed code without breaking copyright law. You can negotiate a
different license with they copyright owner (Trolltech/QT allow this,
for example).
You could argue that the act of running a computer program creates a
copy in memory, and therefore is forbidden without a specific license to
copy from the copyright holder, but that's a whole other issue.
A real world example?
Kernel source: linux/fs/9p/9p.c
Licensed under GPL, free to modify etc. as long as anyone you give the
changes too has the same rights as you
Originally written by Ron Minnich, his original version is copyrighted
("owned" as you will) by him (or his employer depending on his contract
and when he created the software).
Modifications by Eric Van Hensbergen, those modifications are owned by
him. Ron can't take the modifications and reuse them unless he complies
with the terms of the GPL.
> My GPL code is not mine to do with as I please anymore. Someone
> else can easily take a previous / current version and take it in their
> particular direction.
They can, but your original code is still yours, you can do whatever you
want to it, ignoring the GPL. You can't revoke the permission you have
given to someone else (Ron can't revoke Eric's permission to modify the
file above), but you still have copyright on the original.
> Ownership - in regard to steering, restriction of rights and removal
> from availability - are NOT within my rights as author once I've
> released the code as GPL. If the code contains any contributions from
> other authors, I also cannot relicence that code without their consent.
That's right, but if you don't have any modifications (the 2003 version
of 9p.c, before Eric's modifications) you can do whatever you want,
aside from revoke permissions you've already granted.
You can add your own code, and choose not to release the source under
the GPL, for example.
You don't have any control over what other people do with the code
(outside of trademark law), but your code is still yours to do with as
you please.
> Hence, I attribute some files to the Free Software Foundation so that
> there can be no doubt that relicensing is not an option. i.e. I reassign
> my copyright to the FSF simply by replacing:
> Copyright 2006 Neil Williams linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> Copyright 2006 Free Software Foundation Inc.
> in the licence notice in the relevant file.
Admirable, but not neccersary under the terms of the GPL, you'll find
most of the Linux Kernel is copyright of various people (about 470ish).
If all those people get together and decide that the next version of the
kernel will not be released under GPL2, then that's their choice. You
and I will still have rights under the GPL2 license that 2.6.14 (or
whatever) is running, but their new version would be out of our reach.
> c.f. Perl - the original author cannot now take Perl away from the
> community, it cannot be made proprietary.
No, but he can make modifications to the code that he originally wrote,
and release it as proprietry. He wouldn't be infringing anyone's rights
under copyright.
(Perl's creative commons isn't it anyway? Although that's a moot point)
> The moment any free software (and much open source software too) is
> available for download across a public network with a licence notice
> included, it ceases to be possible for the original author to dictate
> the future direction of the code or to unilaterally withdraw the code.
Techincally it has to be copied by at least one person pre-withdrawel
for that to happen, otherwise noone will have a license to copy the code.
> We demonstrated that with FEMM - the mere fact that I have a copy that
> was legitimately downloaded before the licence changed means that the
> new licence does not and cannot apply to me.
Yes, that's true
> The FEMM author infringed Robin's rights as a contributor
I'd imagine so, if he didn't obey the terms of the GPL with respect to
Robins code.
> - the problem was that without a clear
> licence notice in Robin's code it was hard to pursue the case.
GPL violations are hard to persue anyway, if the license is in doubt,
then the courts should decide the original license takes precedent.
Anyone copying Robin's code will need Robin's permission, etiher via a
generic License like the GPL, or a specific license like "I give
permission to John Doe to copy my code 2 times"
> It was
> sufficient to merely demonstrate that the licence could not be changed
> unilaterally. FEMM has since re-appeared as an open source project.
> http://femm.neil.williamsleesmill.me.uk/
In that case that's right. The kernel can't change to GPL3 unless all
contributers OK it, OR any non-OKing contributer's code is removed from
the kernel (and independently reimplemented as allowed by copyright law)
In the case where somebody reasigns copyright to an organisation like
the FSF, the FSF would have to OK it.
> The fact that Robin's code was a small % of the codebase does not matter
> - he contributed some of the code that constituted the software that was
> relicenced without his consent. His copyright was infringed.
Inded, he "owns" that code. If that code were removed, then he wouldn't
have a case. It wasn't, so he does have a case.
> The
> original author is not above the licence once ANY contribution has been
> accepted from a third party because that contribution is made under the
> terms of the *old* licence and the contributed code cannot be put under
> a different licence without agreement from the copyright holder of that
> portion of the code. The only option is to rewrite the infringing code -
> that was not done in the case of FEMM.
Yes, but the original release didn't have robins code, and was whoely
owned by the original author, who can relicense.
> > You have copyright over it.
>
> True - that is never in doubt. The GPL is governed by copyright law but
> it makes an explicit emphasis on copyleft too. Anyone who contributes to
> the software (including documentation) also retains copyright over their
> contribution.
Yes, they own their contribution, which is what I said in the first
place!
> > You allow others to copy it given the terms in the GPL, you don't
> > have to obey those terms as you don't have to accept the GPL,
>
> That is ONLY true if you have written 100% of the code yourself in a
> clean room environment. If you've taken any GPL code into your
> programme, your programme also needs to be GPL - you ARE bound by that
> because YOU didn't write that bit of the code. That is why readline is a
> GPL library.
Indeed, although I'm surprised that readline is GPL and not LGPL
> >> That's why free software isn't such a confusing term - software
> >> cannot be traded like cars, only the media can be traded, the
> >> software has to be licensed.
> >
> > If you want to copy software in certain circumstances you need a
> > license to copy it, but you don't need a license to run it.
>
> Sometimes you do. You are not allowed to install or run proprietary
> software without accepting the EULA.
Of course you are. Every time I use an ATM I use proprietary software,
and I haven't agreed to any EULA (I'm agreed to a certain implicit
contract, same as when I buy a marsbar from a shop, but that's not the
same thing)
To install the software you technically need to agree to the EULA. It's
illegal under copyright law to change that EULA (as that's changing a
copyrighted thing), although causing your computer not to execute that
part is shadier ground, and may be deemed implicit agreement (or even
breaking), but that's another story.
> It is within the remit of a
> proprietary licence, built on the same copyright laws, to prevent anyone
> from compiling, executing, viewing, copying, distributing and even
> storing the programme without consent. That is what "All Rights
> Reserved" means.
Under what law? Copyright law only covers making a copy (permament copy I
believe, otherwise CD's would infringe when you play them as the data is
stored in memory temporarilly, as would reading a webpage). Running
software isn't covered by that. Installing it to your computer may be an
infringment of copyright law, I can't remember offhand. You are allowed
to (in the UK of course) make back-up copies of software with no
license, again under copyright law.
> >> Free software therefore means a free licence - a licence that gives
> >> you freedom to use that software your way.
> >
> > No, it gives you the freedom to avoid the restrictions imposed by
> > copyright law, like making a copy for your neighbour, modifying it
> > etc.
>
> The vast majority of software includes contributions from others.
> Without the explicit consent of those others, the licence cannot be
> changed. Unless you have zero input from anyone else, you - as author -
> are bound by your licence agreement with the other authors. We've been
> here before with Robin and FEMM.
The vast majority of large software products, however 9p.c in the linux
kernel could be relicensed with permission of only 2 people. The 1998
version of lilo is copyrighted by Werner Almesberger alone. Many small
GPL projects have no contributions other than that of the original
author, I've created some myself.
> Copyright is about authors, not owners. Copyright enforcement can only
> be done by the copyright holder, in accordance with the licence. The
> copyright holder being not necessarily the same person as the author of
> the majority of the code.
The copyright is held by all contributers, as such the program is owned
by all contributers. Your original point was you lose ownership of the
code when you license under GPL (and somebody accepts that license), I
guess it depends on your definition of "own". Your code is still your
own, you don't lose any rights to it by licensing under the GPL, you
simply grant rights to others.
> >> EULA. End User Licence Agreement.
> >
> > Which is arguably not a contract, certainly not one I agreed to, yet
> > I am currently using windows 2000 (with putty, ssh'd into my home
> > machine)
> >
> > If a 5 yearold clicks "I agree" when they install software, then they
> > aren't hold to the terms of that contract. There are many other
> > things in contract law about unreasonable terms etc. that apply too.
> >
>
> M$ would disagree. Personally, I cannot afford to test that one in court.
That's a whole other story, but I haven't agreed to the Windows 2000
license, I don't see how I can be held to it's content.
> There is no real reason to doubt that an EULA is enforceable simply by
> clicking blindly. It doesn't have to be a legally binding contract, the
> copyright holder has the authority to dictate how the copyrighted
> material is used with or without your consent.
Copyright covers copying, not use (unless that use involves copying --
running a computer program arguably falls under this, however reading a
book clearly doesn't, and there is no way that a copyright holder of a
book would be able to hold anyone to a license agreement).
> "Fair usage" is assumed
> for certain types of copyrighted work but it is up to a court to decide
> what it really means. The copyright holder undoubtedly has the right to
> prevent any and all possible uses of the copyrighted material and there
> is *nothing* you can do to invalidate that outside a courtroom. Your
> agreement is not actually required for copyright law to be enforceable
> against you.
Of course, but that's for copying. Use of copyrighted material is not
covered under any copyright law in the UK, unless it involves copying
(publishing excerpts from a book), which is sometimes allowed without a
license, sometimes not.
> The EULA dialogue itself is only one part of the package - the software
> usually comes with a lengthy paper licence and/or a licence file on the
> original media.
I wouldn't know, I don't buy proprietry software. That license grants
you rights to copy the work. If you don't accept the license, then
copyright law applies and you can't make a copy except for certain
execptions like Current Affairs, reviews etc.
> Ignorance of the law is no defence and in a business
> setting, not reading an EULA could give rise to a claim for negligence
> against you by your employer.
I don't agree to windows EULA's at work, I don't feel I'm qualified to
sign a legal contract on behalf of my employer. Other people do, but
that's their choice.
> All messages signed with 0x28bcb3e3 or 0xa897fd02 are Copyright Neil
> Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, date as gnupg signature timestamp.
I take that as implicit consent to reproduce your email on my computer
(storage), and in this reply. If not, too late, sorry I'm infringing,
but I doubt any court would find in your favour.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html