[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:42:02AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> He holds the copyright on that code. He does not own it. Very subtle,
> but extremely important difference.
> No, you keep equating ownership with holding the copyright.
Ownership of intellectual property is a flawed concept, but you're the one
who brought it up. The only way I could parse the following statement
was equating "own" to "having copyright". I get the feeling this is
where most of our disagreement comes from.
> The GPL does NOT allow the copyrighted material to be transferred to a
> different licence without permission - to do so would allow a
Permission of the copyright holder(s). If there's only one that's easy
to grant, if there's many that's still possible.
> Only in the exceptional circumstance that 100% of the code within the
> package is under my sole copyright. This INCLUDES libraries and macros
> from the build system!!
Unless those libraries and macros are licensed elsewhere. You can use
gcc to create non GPL or non-free software, as long as you have
permission from all copyright holders to link to their libraries ("The
most common case [to use LGPL] is when a free library's features are
readily available for proprietary software through other alternative
libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any
particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that
library.")
> Unless you write the entire thing using no GPL
> dependencies, then the entire package must be released as GPL AND you
> are bound by the GPL when you distribute the code that includes the
> other GPL code when it is linked. To change to a new licence, you would
> have to ensure that the elements that you pull in from the wider system
> are either replaced or already available under a compatible licence.
Easilly doable, write your code in Java for example
> True. The GPL is irrevocable. Once code is distributed under the GPL,
> no-one can prevent further distribution and modification of that code
> provided that such actions are still within the GPL itself.
But the copyright owner can make their own changes. This happens with
wine and qt for example.
> It is and there is talk that at least some of the kernel may not be
> available under GPL3.
Indeed, some. It's possible to remove parts from a GPL program that the
copyright holder wont relicense, and keep the parts where copyright
holders will relicense.
> >> 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.
>
> But what's the point of that? The original core code has been rewritten
> dozens of times. It bears no resemblance to the current core. It would
> undoubtedly be buggy.
In the case of perl, true, but other programs are mainly the work of a
single person, with only a few minor modifications by others. The
original author might decide to regress to his original version and
relicense. This wont take anyones rights away.
> >> 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
>
> Not quite true. Not all kernel contributors have removed the section
> about "at your option any later version". Those files that have an
> unmodified GPL licence notice can be redistributed under any subsequent
> version of the GPL.
Absolutely true, but in this case they've already OKed it when they
originall licensed it
> 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).
> > Yes, but the original release didn't have robins code, and was whoely
> > owned by the original author, who can relicense.
>
> Not quite. The author accepted input from others, as well as Robin. We
> don't know if those others were approached and consented to the new
> licence. All we do know is that Robin did not consent - nor was he even
> consulted.
Well yes, remove their code too, however if he doesn't they're the only
ones that can fight it.
> > 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)
>
> That EULA allows you to do that - another EULA may not.
The EULA is arguably a contract between the organisation/person
specified in it, and the person that agreed. I didn't agree to it. The
only law that would prevent me from using a software product would be
the computer misuse act
> >> 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
>
> Any operation on software involves copying. Software on a storage medium
> is completely inert. You cannot modify it, execute it or view it without
> making a copy in memory. The EULA does not necessarily have to allow ANY
> copying. It may or may not allow copying into memory for the purposes of
> execution, it could only allow copying into memory for the purpose of
> display in a read-only mode.
Copyright law only covers making a copy, however there are terms of
"reasonability" in interpreting copyright law in the UK due to fair dealing,
and it might be reasonalbe to assume the exception "Making back-ups of
computer programs which are necessary for the purposes of lawful use of
the program" covers running a program and storing it temporarilly
(what's the definition of backup?)
Playing a music CD creates a temporary copy (data is buffered for error correction
etc),
without explicit permission from the copyright holder. A judge might
interpret it that making a copy of a computer program in memory to
execute it is part of it's function and not covered under copyright law.
I'm not aware of any case law on the matter though. Remember UK copyright
law is very restrictive compared to other countries (which often allow personal
copies for non profit use in most, if not all, cases)
When I use a cash machine there is no contract between me and microsoft,
and theres no way for me to even work out if the cash machine runs
windows, os2 or whatever.
Interestingly I'm not allowed to use my girlfriends laptop. She has
Windows XP Home, which according to the EULA, gives permission to her
(either an individual or a single entity) to use the computer software.
Doesn't give me permission, therefore by using it, I'm infringing
copyright. In no case would the EULA apply to me (the only law to cover
that would be the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Which
states "The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by
name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description".
The EULA doesn't specify the third party (me).
> CD's are specifically licensed to allow playback but only to a certain
> number of people - public broadcast is disallowed in the vast majority
> of cases. Read the notice on a music CD carefully - it's often printed
> on the actual CD around the edge.
No such license. The text is as useful as the "Warning this video is
copyrighted, don't copy it" warnings on the front of a VHS, or the
copyright notice on a book or at the end of a film. It simply reminds
you that the CD is covered by copyright law.
If you play a CD to the public, it's counted as an infringment, in black
and white, in section 18 CDPA1988, same as if you play a tape.
> > Running software isn't covered by that.
>
> It can be. Executing software involves making a copy in memory. That can
> be specifically prohibited under copyright law - that is one of the
> features of the non-disclosure agreements for the Windows source code,
> that it may not be made into an executable form. Those agreements are
> based on copyright law because no other law applies.
An NDA is just a contract
> This is not at all uncertain - it is an extremely important point within
> the software patent discussions because it is central to whether certain
> types of embedded systems can be patented and the point at which a
> silicon chip changes from hardcoded ROM to modifiable ROM. Robin or
> Aaron may be the best people to take that point on.
All part of the nightmare of "IP" law, on one hand you've got basic
mathamatical statements, on the other you've got a lightbulb, and theres
things between where the line blurs.
> > 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.
>
> No. That is a false assumption. "Fair use" is a concept borrowed from
> public libraries of text. It has NOT been accepted in a UK court that it
> applies to ANY digital format. "Fair use" actually only applies to text
> for the specific and limited purposes of "personal research".
Section 50A of the 1988 Copyright act, ammended in 1992 by the copyright
(computer programs) regulations. "It is not an infringement of copyright
for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up
copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his
lawful use."
> > 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.
>
> You'd be surprised - look closely at the code and the dependencies.
The code itself isn't copyrighted by the dependencies, it's just code.
Once you compile it you link it to copyrighted libraries, and you infringe.
> > 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.
>
> You may not see it but if M$ choose to ensure that you do see how this
> is possible, it will be a US courtroom that makes it clear to you.
Well indeed, doesn't make it right (or even legal). That's why I tend to
prefer using free software, and not agreeing to any licenses (including
the GPL in almost all cases).
There's nothing in UK law to hold me to that contract.
> > 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.
>
> NO! If only copyright law applies, the law is:
>
> "All Rights Reserved except by express and written consent of the
> copyright holder under any and all conditions required by the copyright
> holder for the duration of the copyright period."
Indeed, those rights that are reserved are those granted to the
copyright holder by the CDPA and it's ammendments.
> >> 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,
>
> You agree that you will do nothing to bring your employer into legal
> confrontation with a third party - that is part of your employment contract.
>
> Your company HAS accepted the EULA.
Indeed, but I'm not the one clicking the agreement as I'm not qualified
to agree to legal terms (or even understand them). Any claim of
negligence will be easilly defeated by the union.
> You work for them. You accept the
> EULA because you accept working for an employer who requires that you
> operate under the terms and conditions of that employment. One of those
> conditions is that you agree to abide by the agreements and contracts
> made by the employer in the normal and reasonable practice of their work.
Yes, but I'm not going to sign a contract with a third party on behalf
of my employer.
> > 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.
>
> You don't have to. Your employer has agreed to the terms and that is all
> that matters.
So when I install a copy of windows why does it present me with an EULA?
> You agree to accept the conditions of employment and your
> company agrees to uphold the EULA. Your employment requires you to abide
> by agreements made by the company in so far as those agreements affect
> your sphere of work. If your work involves using software controlled by
> the EULA to achieve tasks that are required of you by your employment
> contract, then you have an obligation to uphold the agreements that the
> company has made in good faith concerning the software that was obtained
> by the company for that task. If you disagree, your only real option is
> to provide, at your own cost, a replacement piece of software that your
> employer agrees is comparable and will produce acceptable results.
Shame, I don't think Linux would compare with windows. The linux
machines we have at work are always up, the windows machines are
rebooted (45 minute downtime) every month for critical patches.
> If a company discovers that an employee has copied 10,000 Windows 2000
> CD's and sold them at car boot sales, they have the right to begin
> disciplinary proceedings against that employee in order to reduce their
> liability should M$ come after them as licence holders of the copied
> software.
Assuming I dont do it on work time or with work computers, and don't
bring the company into disrepute I don't see how.
> Yes, implicit consent is reasonable in the circumstances that this is a
> publicly archived mailing list. You do not need my consent to reply -
> the comment was added just to demonstrate a point.
I need consent to quote you, implicit or explicit.
>
> Note that the statement ALSO applies to any private emails sent between
> us, if any. There, no such consent can be assumed although, again, it
> would be reasonable to assume that the right to copy the original in a
> reply is acceptable, especially as the reply would normally include a
> statement along the lines that the original (as identified by some kind
> of quoting symbol) was attributable to the copyright holder.
>
> See how silly this whole copyright thing becomes in the absence of a
> free and open licence!
PITA, but the GPL is also a PITA (to a lesser extent), but irellevent
for me
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
--
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