D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] If You Support Free Software, Talk To Your MP Now

 

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:52:18 +0000
tom <tompotts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think, what they are trying to say, is that under a section concerned 
> with orphaned works if the copyright owner cant be traced easily then 
> the GPL can be ignored for a payment to a body. Since most GPL software 
> is out in the wild the copyright owner is not immediately obvious - most 
> people just put their name but no other contact details (who want to be 
> spammed to death?). So all MS (say) has to do it contact a couple of 
> 'authors' with the same name, claim they've tried to contact the authors 
> unsuccessfully and write proprietary software based on GPL works without 
> having to return anything back to the community.
> I knew the bill was bad but if it really allows this it is very very 
> serious indeed.

The GPL can only ever be enforced by the original authors anyway. If
the authors are uncontactable at the addresses given, the required step
is to check for an updated version of the software and use those
addresses. If no updated version is found or those addresses also fail,
then there is nobody to enforce the GPL on that code. Dead code is dead
code.

Reputable people would still avoid the changing the code to a different
licence (e.g. Debian would not be able to change it even from LGPL to
GPL or from GPL-2 to GPL-3) but, as a point of law, there is nothing
anyone can do to actually prosecute such a change. It's a matter of a
loss of reputation, insulting words from important people and various
other intangibles. (Along with the possibility that the uncontactable
people will suddenly reappear from their seclusion once someone makes
a big enough fuss.)

Uncontactable authors are *only* an issue for GPL'd code with regard
to licence changes - anyone wanting to maintain the code and retain
the licence can do so. At this point, there is an opportunity for that
person to add their contact details as a copyright holder (joint with
the previous ones) and then there is at least someone who can enforce
the GPL - it would be difficult to enforce unless the changes amounted
to more than just a few tweaks, that person would have to be able to
show that real and substantive changes occurred, although not
necessarily affecting any specific sub-sections of code. 

This is one reason why the FSF encourage developers to *assign*
copyright to the FSF - AFAICT it hasn't been tested as to what such
assignment truly means.

Whether any small project would ever have the resources to properly
enforce the GPL on their own is debatable - which is another reason to
consider putting the FSF in the list of copyright holders.

The change in the law is not how it appears - it isn't as dangerous as
some are claiming. In practical terms, I consider it pointless raising
a fuss over this with MP's.

A copyrighted work with a clear copyright notice in suitable places is
still a copyrighted work - the only issue is whether there is anyone
with the right to enforce that copyright.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgpWInsuhAlA3.pgp
Description: PGP 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