Disarming Viral Software Licenses
fft1976
need to go nuts, even if you feel very strongly about viral licenses)
The GPL license [1], now wide-spread among non-commercial software,
requires that if you create a derived work and provide it to someone,
you must also provide the new source code (software blueprints) under
the same license, requiring others to abide by the same license, ad
nauseam. (This is the "viral" part)
I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work
requires a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code
under GPL from everyone to whom the derived work is provided? The
intent of the GPL is of course to prevent anything like that (so it
can spread), but is it really doing that, and if so, is it legal and
enforceable?
John Hasler
> I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work requires
> a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code under GPL from
> everyone to whom the derived work is provided?
From section 10 of the GPL:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
fft1976
> fft1976 writes:
> > I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work requires
> > a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code under GPL from
> > everyone to whom the derived work is provided?
>
> From section 10 of the GPL:
>
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
> rights granted or affirmed under this License.
But is it legal and enforceable? This seems a bit like a non-compete
clause (that can be ignored in California). Just because the viral
license demands something, does not mean it's entitled to it (limiting
separate contracts with third parties).
Gordon Burditt
>need to go nuts, even if you feel very strongly about viral licenses)
>
>The GPL license [1], now wide-spread among non-commercial software,
>requires that if you create a derived work and provide it to someone,
>you must also provide the new source code (software blueprints) under
>the same license, requiring others to abide by the same license, ad
>nauseam. (This is the "viral" part)
>I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work
>requires a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code
>under GPL from everyone to whom the derived work is provided? The
If you really want to "get around" the GPL, contact the author and
see if they will agree to give you a different license (which is
likely to cost money). Some code is available under multiple
licenses.
>intent of the GPL is of course to prevent anything like that (so it
>can spread), but is it really doing that, and if so, is it legal and
>enforceable?
I don't think having someone waive is a substitute for anything,
particularly not a substitute providing the source code.
>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
It would be interesting if the GPL specifically required that you
may not waive (note complete absense of any restriction on WHAT you
may not waive) without permission in writing from the Free Software
Foundation, and that this requirement was found legally to affect
the relationship between you and your landlord, or between you and
the Internal Revenue Service.
Rui Maciel
> (This is a purely theoretical legal question I'm curious about, no
> need to go nuts, even if you feel very strongly about viral licenses)
>
> The GPL license [1], now wide-spread among non-commercial software,
> requires that if you create a derived work and provide it to someone,
> you must also provide the new source code (software blueprints) under
> the same license, requiring others to abide by the same license, ad
> nauseam. (This is the "viral" part)
It isn't "viral". The GPL is a license, which is nothing more than a list of conditions set by the
author(s) that you must respect in order to be granted the privilege of accessing that software. If you
"create a derived work" you are still using the software that the original authors have produced. The
original authors don't lose any of their rights on their work just because someone decided to tweak it,
specially if that person acknowledged the set of conditions initially set up.
> I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work
> requires a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code
> under GPL from everyone to whom the derived work is provided?
Waiver? That doesn't make sense. What that person needs to do is get the authors of that work to agree to
let them access their work under a new set of conditions. To put it in other words, you need to access that
work under a new license which must be willingly provided by the original authors themselves.
Rui Maciel
Rui Maciel
> But is it legal and enforceable? This seems a bit like a non-compete
> clause (that can be ignored in California).
That doesn't make any sense. If you pick up a CD/DVD with some other piece of software, lets say MS Office,
then do you believe that the fact that Microsoft will not authorize you to distribute their own work under
any other license that you may see fit means that their license is "viral" ? Does that mean that Microsoft's
license for MS Office is illegal and unenforceable or a non-compete clause?
> Just because the viral
> license demands something, does not mean it's entitled to it (limiting
> separate contracts with third parties).
Indeed. Yet, you do not have to right to pick up any copyrighted work and not only ignore it's license but
also make it out to be your own work at the expenses of the work's rightful owners.
Rui Maciel
fft1976
> > The GPL license [1], now wide-spread among non-commercial software,
> > requires that if you create a derived work and provide it to someone,
> > you must also provide the new source code (software blueprints) under
> > the same license, requiring others to abide by the same license, ad
> > nauseam. (This is the "viral" part)
>
> It isn't "viral". The GPL is a license, which is nothing more than a list of conditions set by the
> author(s) that you must respect in order to be granted the privilege of accessing that software.
No. The original work may be long gone, but because GPL propagated
itself through the many changes, the license may be the only thing
that remains of the original.
That's why it's viral.
GPL is similar to a non-compete agreement in that it attempts to limit
the person's contracts with third parties. Please see my original
message. I suspect you didn't.
John Hasler
> The original work may be long gone, but because GPL propagated itself
> through the many changes, the license may be the only thing that remains
> of the original.
If the original work is long gone so is all standing for the original
author to enforce his terms. The new work can be distributed under
whatever terms its authors can agree on. The original author no longer has
any say.
> GPL is similar to a non-compete agreement in that it attempts to limit
> the person's contracts with third parties.
Nonsense.
Gordon Burditt
>list of conditions set by the
>> author(s) that you must respect in order to be granted the privilege
>of accessing that software.
>
>No. The original work may be long gone, but because GPL propagated
>itself through the many changes, the license may be the only thing
>that remains of the original.
The same applies to copyright. There is no guarantee that you can
get hold of the original author (who may be long dead) to negotiate
a license so you can redistribute it.
>That's why it's viral.
>
>GPL is similar to a non-compete agreement in that it attempts to limit
>the person's contracts with third parties. Please see my original
>message. I suspect you didn't.
*COPYRIGHT* is similar to a non-compete agreement in that it attempts
to limit the person's contracts with third parties.
A truly "viral" license would have provisions like this:
- If you distribute this software, you must distribute *ALL* software
you write under the GPL and under no other license.
- Distributing this software transfers any patents or first-born children
you may own to the Free Software Foundation.
- You may not deem nor permit anyone to deem on your behalf without
permission from the Free Software Foundation (which will never be
forthcoming).
Andrew Halliwell
> On May 6, 8:47ï¿œpm, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>> fft1976 writes:
>> > I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work requires
>> > a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code under GPL from
>> > everyone to whom the derived work is provided?
>>
>> From section 10 of the GPL:
>>
>> ￜ ￜ rights granted or affirmed under this License.
>
> But is it legal and enforceable? This seems a bit like a non-compete
> clause (that can be ignored in California). Just because the viral
> license demands something, does not mean it's entitled to it (limiting
> separate contracts with third parties).
What does employment law have to do with software licenses?
Apart from nothing, of course.
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
John Hasler
> But is it legal and enforceable?
Yes, it is. If you comply with the license you can use it as a complete
defense against a suit for copyright infringement by the copyright owner.
> limiting separate contracts with third parties
It has nothing to do with limiting contracts with third parties. It has to
do with conditional permission to copy a work protected by copyright.
Baron
I smell a troll !
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Douglas Mayne
I am not a lawyer, but I find the terms of the GPL to promote cooperation
and creation of new works. IIRC, that is the same goal of the Copyright
acts in the United States. Remember, "Copyleft" is really just a copyright
license. Enforcement of copyright violation varies by jurisdiction.
Violating copyright can certainly lead to civil action and civil
penalties. In a recent copyright based legal action, criminal penalties
have been applied (http://tinyurl.com/dd8knx) Ouch.
The BSD, GPL, and commercial software licenses are copyright licenses.
They tell you what you're entitled to do with the software. The BSD
license allows source code to be forked at any point, and then taken
private by new developers. The GPL also allows forks at any point, but
taking code private is disallowed. Each license makes a case why one
is better than the other. From the outset, the developers are free to
choose whatever license they would like to use. Whatever they choose, it's
good to have the legal framework in place; otherwise, it's like getting
married without a prenuptial agreement. If there is a divorce, then one
party is likely to feel cheated. It's good to be on the same page from the
start.
There is some legal standing for the enforcability of the GPL. From
your reference:
<quote wikipedia>
In April 2004 the netfilter/iptables project was granted a
preliminary injunction against Sitecom Germany by Munich District Court
after Sitecom refused to desist from distributing Netfilter's GPL'ed
software in violation of the terms of the GPL. On July 2004, the German
court confirmed this injunction as a final ruling against Sitecom.[34] The
court's justification for its decision exactly mirrored the predictions
given earlier by the FSF's Eben Moglen:
Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the
software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its
distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said
actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This
is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the
GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or
not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would
notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make
the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available.
This ruling was important because it was the first time that a court had
confirmed that violating terms of the GPL could effect copyright violation.
</end quote>
--
Douglas Mayne
Rui Maciel
> No. The original work may be long gone, but because GPL propagated
> itself through the many changes, the license may be the only thing
> that remains of the original.
The General Public License is a license. It is nothing more than a set of conditions that a potential user
must agree to obey in order to be granted the right to use a work of art. As it is easy to see, no one can
force anyone to demand a specific set of conditions for their work in exchange for the right to access a
work of art. A legal demand does not and cannot "propagate".
Therefore, if you pick up a GPL software package and if you write a patch for it then no one can force you
to do anything with your piece of work, including forcing you to release it under the GPL. Yet, just
because you've written a patch that doesn't mean you suddenly gained any right over some other person's
work. That means that the GPL license still applies to the code they have written. So, if you wish to
distribute their code then you need to obey their wishes, which are specified in the GPL.
> That's why it's viral.
>
> GPL is similar to a non-compete agreement in that it attempts to limit
> the person's contracts with third parties. Please see my original
> message. I suspect you didn't.
That doesn't make any sense. Do you even know what a copyright license or even a non-compete agreement is?
Rui Maciel
Unruh
>fft1976 <fft...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 6, 8:47�pm, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>>> fft1976 writes:
>>> > I am wondering, what if the person who creates the derived work requires
>>> > a separate waiver of this right to obtain the source code under GPL from
>>> > everyone to whom the derived work is provided?
>>>
>>> From section 10 of the GPL:
>>>
>>> � � You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
>>> � � rights granted or affirmed under this License.
>>
>> But is it legal and enforceable? This seems a bit like a non-compete
>> clause (that can be ignored in California). Just because the viral
>> license demands something, does not mean it's entitled to it (limiting
>> separate contracts with third parties).
That is also covered, in that it says that if you do not agree with the license
agreement, then that license agreement is the only license under which you may
copy the software. Ie, Under copyright law you do not have permission to to copy
the program unless given permission to do so by the copyright owner. The
copyright owner does not give you permission to copy his work for the purpose of
your derived work unless you also give others that permission with respect to the
derived work. You do not have to, but then you have to right to use his work.
>What does employment law have to do with software licenses?
It is an analogy. Thus if the license required you to sacrifice a goat on the
lawn of the legislature, the courts would probably find that condition to be
beyond the contrl of copyright law--ie that you would not have the right to
impose such a condition. In the case of a derived work however, the issue of the
license of that derived work is directly relevant to the original licensor since
he owns the copyright in that derived work (together with you).
Unruh
>fft1976 wrote:
No, it limits your rights to use that person's work in a derived work. f your
work contains nothing of that person's work, then that person has no legal
interest in your work, even if it is the derived work of a derived work of a
derived work which contain that person's work. Copyright law is not viral.
Person A has a legal interest in your work, only if person A's work is contained
in or your work depends on person A's work. It is irrelevant if your work depends
on B's work which is a derived work of A. The condition is that your work itself
depend on the work of A. The GPL is a copyright license and has legal force only
via copyright.
It is NOT a contract.
Andrew Halliwell
> fft1976 wrote:
>
>> No. The original work may be long gone, but because GPL propagated
>> itself through the many changes, the license may be the only thing
>> that remains of the original.
>
> The General Public License is a license. It is nothing more than a set of
> conditions that a potential user must agree to obey in order to be granted
> the right to use a work of art. As it is easy to see, no one can force
> anyone to demand a specific set of conditions for their work in exchange
> for the right to access a work of art. A legal demand does not and cannot
> "propagate".
Not even that. You don't have to agree with the GPL or even abide by it, if
you only USE the software. Nothing in the license limits its usage.
The license covers distribution and copying only, not use.
You could make as many derived works as you like, as long as you keep them
in-house. The moment you start distributing them elsewhere, THEN you must
abide by the GPL.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
fft1976
> It is an analogy. Thus if the license required you to sacrifice a goat on the
> lawn of the legislature, the courts would probably find that condition to be
> beyond the contrl of copyright law--ie that you would not have the right to
> impose such a condition. In the case of a derived work however, the issue of the
> license of that derived work is directly relevant to the original licensor since
> he owns the copyright in that derived work (together with you).
If any young and ambitious lawyers in misc.legal are reading this, I'm
pretty sure you can make quite a name for yourself by popping the GPL
bubble the way I'm proposing (I'm not sure if it's feasible) or any
other way. We are talking TV appearances, book deals, hookers and
blow. GPL is a big problem for many free enterprises worldwide.
I don't think the quality of GPL being viral has any legal relevance
or meaning. I just mention it here because I think it's immoral.
Why it's viral: Person A creates the original work and releases it
under GPL for ideological reasons. Person B creates a derived work and
releases it (now it has to be under GPL). Person C creates a derived
work from that work, but might remove the parts created by A, etc.
etc. By the time it gets to person Z, the original A's contribution is
miniscule or non-existent, but the license he imposed now covers the
combined work of many.
Why it's immoral: in many cases person A is actually RMS himself [1],
and the ideology is basically hippie anti-capitalist and anti- free
enterprise.
If American law does not limit the propagation of these viral licenses
through the software industry already, I think it should.
How I think GPL can be disarmed (I'm not a lawyer, and this work-
around can actually be state legislature-dependent): In the above
example of A through Z GPL propagation, before X gives his software
(without source code) to Y, he might say: "here's the software under
GPL. You owe me $500. I'm obligated to give you the source code if you
ask for it, but before you accept the software, you must agree not to
ask for the source code. take it or leave it". GPL demands that such
additional contracts not be made, but I suspect it's not within the
power of GPL to do so, and if it's true, GPL can be defeated.
Gordon Burditt
>under GPL for ideological reasons. Person B creates a derived work and
>releases it (now it has to be under GPL). Person C creates a derived
>work from that work, but might remove the parts created by A, etc.
>etc. By the time it gets to person Z, the original A's contribution is
>miniscule or non-existent, but the license he imposed now covers the
>combined work of many.
But remember, any one (or more) of those authors may object and
decide to sue, not just the original author, assuming that author
still has a contribution still in the current version.
>Why it's immoral: in many cases person A is actually RMS himself [1],
>and the ideology is basically hippie anti-capitalist and anti- free
>enterprise.
I don't see how an ideology in of itself can be immoral.
I thought it was *pro-capitalist* to release software with all kinds
of strings attached (look at any Microsoft license, for example).
>If American law does not limit the propagation of these viral licenses
>through the software industry already, I think it should.
If American law does not limit the enforcability of licenses that
prohibit publication of benchmarks of the software (see Microsoft
licenses), I think it should.
>How I think GPL can be disarmed (I'm not a lawyer, and this work-
>around can actually be state legislature-dependent): In the above
>example of A through Z GPL propagation, before X gives his software
>(without source code) to Y, he might say: "here's the software under
>GPL. You owe me $500. I'm obligated to give you the source code if you
>ask for it, but before you accept the software, you must agree not to
>ask for the source code. take it or leave it". GPL demands that such
>additional contracts not be made, but I suspect it's not within the
>power of GPL to do so, and if it's true, GPL can be defeated.
>
>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
Note that you STILL might have difficulty selling your software to
Y for $500, since someone might get the source code from W, duplicate
the functionality added by X, and offer it to Y for free. It's called
"competition".
John Hasler
> Person A creates the original work and releases it under GPL for
> ideological reasons. Person B creates a derived work and releases it (now
> it has to be under GPL). Person C creates a derived work from that work,
> but might remove the parts created by A, etc. etc. By the time it gets
> to person Z, the original A's contribution is miniscule or non-existent,
> but the license he imposed now covers the combined work of many.
Wrong. A no longer has any standing in the matter. The work may now be
distributed under any terms B through Z can agree on. Furthermore, each
individual contributor can always distribute his own contribution under any
terms he wishes as long as what he distributes contains no protected
elements of anyone else's work.
> I'm not a lawyer...
This is clear. This is very, very clear.
This was all done to death years ago by other, more intelligent anti-GPL
trolls. Only a fool could seriously believe that none of the thousands of
lawyers who have studied the GPL with a view toward getting around it
thought of your scheme.
The fact that you want the government to prevent me from distributing my
software under terms of my choosing tells us just who here is
"anti-freedom".
John Hasler
> I don't see how an ideology in of itself can be immoral.
Well, it's conceivable that an ideology can be, but we aren't discussing
an ideology. We are discussing a model license.
> I thought it was *pro-capitalist* to release software with all kinds of
> strings attached (look at any Microsoft license, for example).
Think about it a bit. Copyright itself is intrinsically anti-capitalist.
> It's called "competition".
Which is what copyright is explicitly intended to prevent.
The Natural Philosopher
> Note that you STILL might have difficulty selling your software to
> Y for $500, since someone might get the source code from W, duplicate
> the functionality added by X, and offer it to Y for free. It's called
> "competition".
>
The real answer is that in the end, what people pay for isn't code, or a
license to use it. Its someone else to do something they cant do for
themselves.
If you can't afford lawyers, or law enforcement, that's the de facto
reality of it.
>
The Natural Philosopher
> Gordon Burditt writes:
>> I don't see how an ideology in of itself can be immoral.
>
> Well, it's conceivable that an ideology can be, but we aren't discussing
> an ideology. We are discussing a model license.
>
>> I thought it was *pro-capitalist* to release software with all kinds of
>> strings attached (look at any Microsoft license, for example).
>
> Think about it a bit. Copyright itself is intrinsically anti-capitalist.
>
>> It's called "competition".
>
> Which is what copyright is explicitly intended to prevent.
Indeed. The market, the so called free market, is all about developing
an unfair edge on the competition.
Everybody who hasn't wants a monopoly, as long as its theirs. Everyone
who has wants to keep it.
Baron
Hear hear !
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Rui Maciel
<snip />
> Why it's viral: Person A creates the original work and releases it
> under GPL for ideological reasons. Person B creates a derived work and
> releases it (now it has to be under GPL).
You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. The patch that Person B created does not have to be
released under the GPL. It may be released under what ever license crosses Person B's mind.
On the other hand, if Person B, the person who wrote the patch, wishes to distribute Person A's work then he
must follow the conditions that Person A has set in order to access his own original work. Person B, the guy
that wrote a patch, does not nor can he ever take away the rights and conditions set forth by any other
author. It isn't even his work to begin with.
Rui Maciel
fft1976
> fft1976 wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
> > Why it's viral: Person A creates the original work and releases it
> > under GPL for ideological reasons. Person B creates a derived work and
> > releases it (now it has to be under GPL).
>
> You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. The patch that Person B created does not have to be
> released under the GPL. It may be released under what ever license crosses Person B's mind.
>
> On the other hand, if Person B, the person who wrote the patch, wishes to distribute Person A's work then he
> must follow the conditions that Person A has set in order to access his own original work. Person B, the guy
> that wrote a patch, does not nor can he ever take away the rights and conditions set forth by any other
> author. It isn't even his work to begin with.
"derived work" means both A and B contributed to it
> Rui Maciel
LOL
fft1976
> fft1976 wrote:
> > No. The original work may be long gone, but because GPL propagated
> > itself through the many changes, the license may be the only thing
> > that remains of the original.
>
> The General Public License is a license. It is nothing more than a set of conditions that a potential user
> must agree to obey in order to be granted the right to use a work of art.
A work of art?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_art
That's rarely used with software. GPL-licensed code especially tends
to be crap cobbled together by amateurs that needs thousands of people
improving it until it reaches any kind of usability.
This is because the intent of GPL is to demand "improve my crap". Good
programmers are secure about the quality of their work and release
their code to public domain when they want others to marvel at their
code and use it freely, or proprietary licenses, when they want to
profit from it.
> > GPL is similar to a non-compete agreement in that it attempts to limit
> > the person's contracts with third parties. Please see my original
> > message. I suspect you didn't.
>
> That doesn't make any sense.
I'm not surprised. Your language skills seem to be wanting.
John Hasler
Baron
> Please stop feeding the troll. Some are amusing, but this one is just
> inept.
I agree ! It smelt bad after a couple of posts.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.