[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Paul Weaver wrote:
> 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,
Intellectual property is an oxymoron - how can you own something that
doesn't actually exist? IP is a made-up nonsense, it tries to mangle
disparate laws and regulations and makes a complete mess of it all,
losing all distinctions between physical objects and non-physical
concepts in the process. So, yes, ownership of IP is truly flawed -
however you view it.
> but you're the one
> who brought it up. The only way I could parse the following statement
> was equating "own" to "having copyright".
OK, there is a subtle difference there, to do with the subject line, but
it's time to let that drop. No-one else seems interested in the thread
anymore and we two are just going round in circles.
> 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.")
Agreed.
> 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.
As FEMM showed, the loss comes about if the new version is distributed
to the exclusion of all previous versions. When FEMM v4 was released,
previous versions slowly disappeared from the berlios mirrors. This
isn't automatic, the project admin has to deliberately remove the old
versions. That's why FEMM v3.x is still hosted on my server, just in
case he tries it again.
> Well yes, remove their code too, however if he doesn't they're the only
> ones that can fight it.
Absolutely - hence I've attributed some of my code to the FSF to make
that harder (nigh on impossible) into the future. Only the copyright
holder can pursue violations of the GPL or any other copyright /
copyleft licence. By making the FSF one of the copyright holders, it
makes it easier to pursue infringements, should any occur.
> Interestingly I'm not allowed to use my girlfriends laptop.
<pedant>.. use the OS currently installed on your girlfriend's
laptop</pedant>
With your girlfriend's permission you could always wipe the OS and
install one without any such restrictions.
:-)
Installing without permission doesn't infringe copyright, it just ends
up with you maybe losing the girlfriend and the laptop.
;-)
> 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,
You admit it would infringe copyright, then claim that copyright law
doesn't apply? The EULA is a copyright licence, it is enforceable under
copyright law. The principle purpose of an EULA is to restrict the
copying of the software to prevent unauthorised duplication and
distribution.
> 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.
Or distribute unauthorised copies of a copyrighted work of software. A
copyright infringement that the copyright holder can pursue through the
civil courts.
>>> 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
But the software available to those who sign such an NDA is also covered
by copyright, automatically.
> 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.
Precisely.
>>> 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.
Technically you only infringe the GPL upon distribution, either of the
binaries or the source code - you don't have to compile GPL software to
infringe the GPL. e.g. you don't have to compile the source to try to
change the licence without permission but you do infringe the GPL if you
distribute the code with such a modification.
> 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).
The GPL applies when you distribute the code - if you don't distribute
the code then you may use GPL software as you please. It's perfectly
legal to make all kinds of modifications to GPL software when that
modified work is kept private. This introduces a new grey area about web
applications which is why GPL3 is awaited so eagerly in some circles.
Few people on this list need to actually agree to the GPL. Kai and I
have to as we are both in the Debian New Maintainer process which
involves agreeing to the Debian Free Software Guidelines and Social
Contract, amongst other policies.
Everyone on this list would hopefully agree that they need the
*protection* provided by the GPL and other compatible licences. You
don't have to agree to the GPL personally in order the see the benefits
of using software covered by the GPL.
> There's nothing in UK law to hold me to that contract.
Until you distribute GPL software, agreed.
>>> 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?
If your work involves installing windows on behalf of the company,
presumably you register windows in the name of the company - you are
clicking through the EULA on behalf of the company, indeed in their
name. If you simply use windows on works machines, someone else has
agreed to the EULA upon installation. It does not need to be the company
lawyer who clicks the EULA button in order for the company to have to
uphold the EULA. Anyone appointed by the company to install the
copyrighted work is empowered by that company to act on behalf of the
company, including in executing legally binding agreements that are a
necessary and expected part of that work.
>> 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.
Many IT companies would claim that the act alone *does* bring the
company into disrepute - although I neglected to type what I was
thinking which was that the original CD copied by the employee would
have been a company copy, not a private one purchased on the high
street. Nevertheless, a non-IT Plc with a base in Devon has disciplined
at least one employee who sold unauthorised copies in large numbers -
including when the original media was purchased as a private individual.
The activity involved had nothing to do with the job performed by the
employee, except that his job increased the number of possible purchasers.
> PITA, but the GPL is also a PITA (to a lesser extent), but irellevent
> for me
Maybe, until such time as you distribute GPL software. I don't see how
the GPL is a problem for you though. In what ways does the GPL cause you
problems?
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 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