Christian Ludlam, AudioIn and the GPL
Dave Higton
Christian Ludlam wrote the AudioIn application and a module to be used
by other programmes wishing to capture audio input to an Iyonix, and
released it under the GPL v2.
I've written an application that needs to use it. Christian and I
exchanged e-mails in 2009 April, as a result of which he published a
new version (still under the GPL v2) on his web site, created specially
to meet the requirements of my application (low latency), although
still fully suitable for its original general purpose.
His web site has now disappeared, so AudioIn is no longer being
published.
I'd like to put AudioIn on my web site, so that it can be used by my
forthcoming application or anything/anyone else.
However, I didn't get the source to it, so I would be unable to comply
with the GPL's requirement to provide source. Taking that view, I
wouldn't be able to put it on my web site, so the lack of source would
prevent publication of AudioIn and of my application. Now I don't
think that's what the GPL was meant to achieve, but I wouldn't know.
What would you do in my position?
Dave
Rob Kendrick
Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> However, I didn't get the source to it, so I would be unable to comply
> with the GPL's requirement to provide source. Taking that view, I
> wouldn't be able to put it on my web site, so the lack of source would
> prevent publication of AudioIn and of my application. Now I don't
> think that's what the GPL was meant to achieve, but I wouldn't know.
>
> What would you do in my position?
Assuming nobody pops up with the source code, you have four choices;
1) Take the risk that Christian won't sue you for copyright
infringement,
2) Assume that because you're non-profit that you can take
advantage of the clauses that allow you to refer the
people you distribute AudioIn to to Christian's website;
it's not your fault it's no longer there, and hope the
judge sides with you if Christian sues you,
3) Rewrite AudioIn,
4) Rewrite your program to use something else.
This sort of sticky situation (as well as if using SWIs classes as
linking...) is why I don't personally use GPL where I can help it. It
can cause such sticky problems!
B.
Dave Higton
Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Since my original posting, I have discovered that I have the source
(that Christian published) to the previous version of AudioIn. I
haven't managed to make it build yet, but I believe that the
differences between the versions are tiny, and I assume that, if
someone is clever enough to do something useful with the source
code, s/he is clever enough to resolve the differences between the
versions.
I have to repeat the question:
Doug Webb
Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>
>> His web site has now disappeared, so AudioIn is no longer being
>> published.
>>
[snip]
> I have to repeat the question:
> What would you do in my position?
Dave,
Why not see if you get a response off Nick Ludlam?
Doug
--
Using an IYONIX pc and RISC OS 5.16, the thinking person's alternative
operating system to Microsoft Windows.
Jim Lesurf
Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:57:57 +0100 Dave Higton
> <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > However, I didn't get the source to it, so I would be unable to comply
> > with the GPL's requirement to provide source. Taking that view, I
> > wouldn't be able to put it on my web site, so the lack of source would
> > prevent publication of AudioIn and of my application. Now I don't
> > think that's what the GPL was meant to achieve, but I wouldn't know.
> >
> > What would you do in my position?
> Assuming nobody pops up with the source code, you have four choices;
> 1) Take the risk that Christian won't sue you for copyright
> infringement,
> 2) Assume that because you're non-profit that you can take advantage
> of the clauses that allow you to refer the people you distribute
> AudioIn to to Christian's website; it's not your fault it's no
> longer there, and hope the judge sides with you if Christian sues
> you,
I don't know the details of the relevant GPL. But (2) does make sense to
me. If taken to court you could presumably argue that you were unable to
comply because the author himself had failed to comply with the GPL he had
stated applied. That said, I doubt he'd sue. Mind you, I also have little
confidence in courts making sensible decisions. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Rob Kendrick
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't know the details of the relevant GPL. But (2) does make sense
> to me. If taken to court you could presumably argue that you were
> unable to comply
Dave is able to comply; he could simply not distribute it at all. (or,
in light of him finding an older version of the source code,
re-implement the functionality he requires, and release those changes
under the GPL.)
> because the author himself had failed to comply
The author doesn't need to comply; he owns the copyright and can do
anything he likes, including but not limited to licencing it to himself
under more liberal terms.
B.
Dave Higton
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > because the author himself had failed to comply
>
> The author doesn't need to comply; he owns the copyright and can do
> anything he likes, including but not limited to licencing it to himself
> under more liberal terms.
That's a curious interpretation of the GPL. The author published it
under the GPL; what makes you think that he himself is not bound by
its terms?
Dave
Theo Markettos
> That's a curious interpretation of the GPL. The author published it
> under the GPL; what makes you think that he himself is not bound by
> its terms?
He owns the copyright. He licences it to other people under the GPL. He
doesn't need to licence it to himself, because as copyright holder he holds
all the rights. He can do what he likes with it if it is his copyright
(subject to unrelated contracts like NDAs).
If there were contributions from other people, he would have to licence
those contributions under the GPL. If he were willing to replace those
contributions by his own work so that it was again fully his copyright, that
would mean he could then do what he liked with it. But if the contributions
from others remain, he is bound by the GPL just as they are.
Theo
Rob Kendrick
Are you suggesting that, for example, Martin Wuerthner pays himself for
a copy of ArtWorks for each of his machines, or that RISCOS Ltd. go
through all the paperwork for buying a licence for each of theirs?
Licences are just that; one licenses third parties to use the
software. The originator doesn't need a licence, and thus isn't bound
by any requirements.
B.
Chris
email him
a simple search gets
--
Chris de Cordova
The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it.
Jim Lesurf
<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > That's a curious interpretation of the GPL. The author published it
> > under the GPL; what makes you think that he himself is not bound by
> > its terms?
> He owns the copyright. He licences it to other people under the GPL.
> He doesn't need to licence it to himself, because as copyright holder he
> holds all the rights. He can do what he likes with it if it is his
> copyright (subject to unrelated contracts like NDAs).
Yes and no. :-) The problem with the above is that it treats "copyright"
as if it were one monlithic object and exactly the same in all
circumstances.
The reality is that the author(s) start off "owning" a whole set of
"copyrights" (note plural) over what they create [1] and then can choose to
sell/assign/dispose/etc them as they decide. However having done so with
some "rights" by making public declarations or private agreements they then
can't simply withdraw without the agreement of others involved.
So "he" will have started out "owning" the "copyright". But if he then made
statements agreeing to how copies can be used/published, he has himself to
then "comply" with what he said. If this means he said that copies must be
freely published *always with the source* with no other caveats, etc, then
he may break that himself if he doesn't initially 'publish' it with the
source. Depends entirely on what he decided to say and agree to. If he
agreed to GPL then that is what he then has to accept.
Of course, an author is unlikely to sue himself in such cases. Even if he
does have a case that might stand up in civil courts. :-)
Trying to argue about this in terms of other cases and other rights is
irrelevant because copyright is all a matter of the specific agreements and
assignments made for each form of "right" in each case once you move beyond
the point of creation of the work. What may apply in one case may not apply
in others.
In this specific case I have no idea what the author said, or did, nor do I
know the relevant details of the GPL. But that does not change the above as
a general situation which may or may not apply here.
Slainte,
Jim
[1] Of course even this isn't always true. In some cases they may have a
pre-standing contract that various rights in their work are assigned to
someone else. e.g. an employer or a publisher. Again this is a case-by-case
matter about agreements they freely enter into and then have to "comply"
with as a consequence.
Rob Kendrick
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> So "he" will have started out "owning" the "copyright". But if he
> then made statements agreeing to how copies can be used/published, he
> has himself to then "comply" with what he said.
How does this interact with software/intellectual property being
licensed under multiple different licences to multiple people? This
happens all the time in many areas, and many of said licences did not
exist or applied to the IP at the time of its creation.
B.
Theo Markettos
> The reality is that the author(s) start off "owning" a whole set of
> "copyrights" (note plural) over what they create [1] and then can choose to
> sell/assign/dispose/etc them as they decide. However having done so with
> some "rights" by making public declarations or private agreements they then
> can't simply withdraw without the agreement of others involved.
Indeed. But the GPL does not imply any transfer of copyrights. Those
remain with the original author and they can choose what they wish to do
with the copyrights. If they licence the software under the GPL, the GPL
binds other people who wish to use said software... it does not bind the
copyright holder to the same terms. It is only binding if the work contains
copyright from other people (which the original author is thus receiving
under the GPL). The GPL is not an exclusive licence.
However, since releasing under the GPL it would be difficult to subsequently
make other agreements like NDAs or exclusivity agreements, because by
definition the software has been disclosed and is non-exclusive. But that
doesn't prevent the copyright holder(s) making other agreements (eg selling
the copyrights to someone else or allowing someone to sell the software
without source code).
> Trying to argue about this in terms of other cases and other rights is
> irrelevant because copyright is all a matter of the specific agreements and
> assignments made for each form of "right" in each case once you move beyond
> the point of creation of the work. What may apply in one case may not apply
> in others.
True. But in this specific case the author owns all the copyright (we
assume) and the work has not been contaminated by other copyrights. So we
are effectively at the point of creation.
> In this specific case I have no idea what the author said, or did, nor do I
> know the relevant details of the GPL. But that does not change the above as
> a general situation which may or may not apply here.
Generalities are helpful except in the case of specifics :)
Theo
Jim Lesurf
AIUI The basis is essentially what I wrote in the bulk of posting quoted
from above. i.e. It would depend entirely on the circumstances, prior
agreements, etc, in each specific case. If different "rights" have been
assigned to different people/groups/etc under difference requirements, etc,
then each would have to be dealt with accordingly. If new agreements are
made later they can't unilaterally take away what has already been agreed
with others unless a basis for that was already clearly established in
prior agreements, etc.
So if new types of standard "licence" conditions are invented they could
then be used *provided* they don't clash with what had already been agreed.
If their are conflicts or inconsistencies to be resolved then either those
involved would have to agree/accept a situation, or to take it to court if
they so chose.
The author(s) do start in a 'special' position as the creator of the works
if there are no other factors. Even if they have signed over all the
nominal copying "rights" to an employer or publisher they still have some
"rights" which in UK/EU law are non-assignable to anyone else. So that is
the 'default' starting position. Beyond that it is a matter of what is
agreed, etc.
As before I have no idea about the details of the case relating to AudioIn,
so can't say what any of the above would mean in that case.
Slainte,
Jim
Tim Hill
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> The author(s) do start in a 'special' position as the creator of the
> works if there are no other factors. Even if they have signed over all
> the nominal copying "rights" to an employer or publisher they still
> have some "rights" which in UK/EU law are non-assignable to anyone
> else. So that is the 'default' starting position. Beyond that it is a
> matter of what is agreed, etc.
The law says that if you are employed, the right to copy your works is
owned by the employer. There is no clarity about what happens to stuff an
employee creates in their spare time; in spite of what logic may dictate
I think an employer may expect to gain copyright of anything you do in
your spare time which relates to your job. AFAIK there has been no test
case yet.
All the stuff I used to do at home to make my job easier when employed
would bear my copyright. This was helped a great deal by using Acorn file
formats as my colleagues couldn't copy my stuff, except with a
photocopier. :-)
Software licences are an interesting area as most companies try and grasp
more rights than the law assigns, particularly in respect of making a
backup and changing things to work on your particular hardware.
Jim Lesurf
<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > The reality is that the author(s) start off "owning" a whole set of
> > "copyrights" (note plural) over what they create [1] and then can
> > choose to sell/assign/dispose/etc them as they decide. However having
> > done so with some "rights" by making public declarations or private
> > agreements they then can't simply withdraw without the agreement of
> > others involved.
> Indeed. But the GPL does not imply any transfer of copyrights.
Afraid I can't comment on GPL as I don't know the details. However if a
'licence' gives others permission to make copies and publish them then it
does give that "right" to others. What you may then mean by " **any**
transfer " and how that relates to others now having the "right" to make
copies is unclear to me, I'm afraid. Maybe (as mentioned below) this is a
confusion between rights, permissions, etc.
As I pointed out previously "copyright" isn't one monolithic "ownership" of
"rights". So the author can 'transfer' some rights (if you prefer that
term) whilst witholding others.
> However, since releasing under the GPL it would be difficult to
> subsequently make other agreements like NDAs or exclusivity agreements,
> because by definition the software has been disclosed and is
> non-exclusive. But that doesn't prevent the copyright holder(s) making
> other agreements (eg selling the copyrights to someone else or allowing
> someone to sell the software without source code).
Indeed. An author can enter into all sorts of agreements, etc, for a
variety of specific sets of "rights" regarding "copies" and the uses
various others can make of them under various conditions.
> > Trying to argue about this in terms of other cases and other rights is
> > irrelevant because copyright is all a matter of the specific
> > agreements and assignments made for each form of "right" in each case
> > once you move beyond the point of creation of the work. What may apply
> > in one case may not apply in others.
> True. But in this specific case the author owns all the copyright (we
> assume) and the work has not been contaminated by other copyrights. So
> we are effectively at the point of creation.
Again I can't comment on the GPL. But if an author does something like give
others "permission" to make and distribute copies under specific conditions
then that changes his "rights" from then on. At that point he does not
"own" **all** the "copyrights" any longer in the sense of still being as
before. Unless he reserved at the time the right to unilaterally cancel the
permission he may be unable to take it back later on.
One problem here is perhaps mixing up words like "rights" and "permissions"
and 'licence' which in legal terms probably all refer to different aspects
of the situations. But in simple terms the author may still have many
"rights" whilst having given some other "rights" to other parties. Depends
entirely on the details.
> > In this specific case I have no idea what the author said, or did, nor
> > do I know the relevant details of the GPL. But that does not change
> > the above as a general situation which may or may not apply here.
> Generalities are helpful except in the case of specifics :)
Generally true. :-) Which is why I've been pointing out that this all
depends on the details of each case. ;->
Slainte,
Jim
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <dAw*dG...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo Markettos
> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > That's a curious interpretation of the GPL. The author published it
> > > under the GPL; what makes you think that he himself is not bound by
> > > its terms?
>
> > He owns the copyright. He licences it to other people under the GPL.
> > He doesn't need to licence it to himself, because as copyright holder he
> > holds all the rights. He can do what he likes with it if it is his
> > copyright (subject to unrelated contracts like NDAs).
>
> Yes and no. :-) The problem with the above is that it treats "copyright"
> as if it were one monlithic object and exactly the same in all
> circumstances.
>
> The reality is that the author(s) start off "owning" a whole set of
> "copyrights" (note plural) over what they create [1] and then can choose to
> sell/assign/dispose/etc them as they decide. However having done so with
> some "rights" by making public declarations or private agreements they then
> can't simply withdraw without the agreement of others involved.
(All comments AIUI!)
He can stop making it available form himself, [1] but the rights granted under
any licence would remain (unless it included some termination clause)
> So "he" will have started out "owning" the "copyright". But if he then made
> statements agreeing to how copies can be used/published, he has himself to
> then "comply" with what he said.
He only has to carry on letting those other parties with a licence have the
rights granted.
[2]He could withdraw it subject to [1] above, offer it under a different
licence, start to charge for it or sell his copyright...
> If this means he said that copies must be
> freely published *always with the source* with no other caveats, etc, then
> he may break that himself if he doesn't initially 'publish' it with the
> source.
Whether or not sources are involved doesn't make any difference, he can do
as at [2]
The only exception I can see possible if if in a licence the copyright owner
effectively renounces all his rights
> Depends entirely on what he decided to say and agree to. If he
> agreed to GPL then that is what he then has to accept.
>
> Of course, an author is unlikely to sue himself in such cases. Even if he
> does have a case that might stand up in civil courts. :-)
>
> Trying to argue about this in terms of other cases and other rights is
> irrelevant because copyright is all a matter of the specific agreements and
> assignments made for each form of "right" in each case once you move beyond
> the point of creation of the work. What may apply in one case may not apply
> in others.
>
> In this specific case I have no idea what the author said, or did, nor do I
> know the relevant details of the GPL. But that does not change the above as
> a general situation which may or may not apply here.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
>
> [1] Of course even this isn't always true. In some cases they may have a
> pre-standing contract that various rights in their work are assigned to
> someone else. e.g. an employer or a publisher. Again this is a case-by-case
> matter about agreements they freely enter into and then have to "comply"
> with as a consequence.
>
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20100621115...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob
> Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:28:12 +0100 Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > So "he" will have started out "owning" the "copyright". But if he then
> > > made statements agreeing to how copies can be used/published, he has
> > > himself to then "comply" with what he said.
>
> > How does this interact with software/intellectual property being
> > licensed under multiple different licences to multiple people? This
> > happens all the time in many areas, and many of said licences did not
> > exist or applied to the IP at the time of its creation.
>
> AIUI The basis is essentially what I wrote in the bulk of posting quoted
> from above. i.e. It would depend entirely on the circumstances, prior
> agreements, etc, in each specific case. If different "rights" have been
> assigned to different people/groups/etc under difference requirements, etc,
> then each would have to be dealt with accordingly. If new agreements are
> made later they can't unilaterally take away what has already been agreed
> with others unless a basis for that was already clearly established in
> prior agreements, etc.
>
> So if new types of standard "licence" conditions are invented they could
> then be used *provided* they don't clash with what had already been agreed.
AIUI They can clash e.g. require payment, but they can't change any rights
previously granted. (Any change of licence is a clash)
I can think of various RISC OS titles that were 'PD' and then later versions
are now commercial. Anyone who already has or obtains a copy of the PD
version will still be covered by whatever 'PD' type licence it was made
available with.
Even if the software is unchanged it can be commercialised, though it would
be very difficult to enforce if the original licence allowed the software to
passed onto third parties.
> If their are conflicts or inconsistencies to be resolved then either those
> involved would have to agree/accept a situation, or to take it to court if
> they so chose.
>
> The author(s) do start in a 'special' position as the creator of the works
> if there are no other factors. Even if they have signed over all the
> nominal copying "rights" to an employer or publisher they still have some
> "rights" which in UK/EU law are non-assignable to anyone else. So that is
> the 'default' starting position. Beyond that it is a matter of what is
> agreed, etc.
>
> As before I have no idea about the details of the case relating to AudioIn,
> so can't say what any of the above would mean in that case.
I recently read an article pointing out that an Artist who sells a painting
(even a commissioned one) still retains the rights of its photographic
reproduction (unless written into the sale contract)!
I wonder how such rights could apply to software, if at all.
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
> In article <512ae2d...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > The author(s) do start in a 'special' position as the creator of the
> > works if there are no other factors. Even if they have signed over all
> > the nominal copying "rights" to an employer or publisher they still
> > have some "rights" which in UK/EU law are non-assignable to anyone
> > else. So that is the 'default' starting position. Beyond that it is a
> > matter of what is agreed, etc.
> The law says that if you are employed, the right to copy your works is
> owned by the employer.
That presupposes specific definions of "right", "works", and "owned". Yes,
your employer may well have some rights to make/use copies of some of your
works for some purposes. There will be a default case laid out by local
law, then modified by your employment contract, etc. However it is not
automatic that they have *all* the "rights" for *all* your works of every
kind, done in all your waking hours, and that the employee has no "rights"
at all.
> Software licences are an interesting area as most companies try and
> grasp more rights than the law assigns, particularly in respect of
> making a backup and changing things to work on your particular hardware.
Companies do tend to try to squeeze as much blood out of stones as they
they can force the stones to yield. They will also play whatever games they
think suit them in terms of mixing copyrights, patents, and good old
commercial secrets. This may not be so much a matter of what the law would
support, as what they can get away with without others having the resources
and will to take though the courts. The problem is that employees or others
may simply be unable to stand up against this.
TBH My own main worries about copyright is the way some works become
'orphans' and can't be republished even by the authors when people would be
happy to pay for fresh copies. Countless books, journal articles, and other
works like circuit diagrams, etc, fall into this dreadful trap. The result
is a loss of accessible info *and* fair income and recognition for the
authors.
Personally, I'd like to see copyright law changed to enable something like
re-publication by others after a specific time if the orginal publisher
ceases to make something available and either refuses to re-publish or has
become unfindable.
Jim Nagel
and the GPL"]:
> I wonder how such rights could apply to software, if at all.
this prompts a general question that has made me wonder for some time,
and which becomes increasingly relevant:
what's the general position about software whose author has lost
interest in it? it seems a shame that others who would be keen to
continue developing it are prevented or put off by supposed licences
that are still supposedly in effect. perhaps such licences should
carry an automatic self-destruct clause that would kick in unless the
author expresses enough interest to take some simple action to defer
it (like renewing a web domain).
did the recent Digital Rights bill have something on this point? i'm
not up to date.
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
Chris Hughes
Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Evans wrote on 22 Jun [in the thread "Christian Ludlam, AudioIn
> and the GPL"]:
>> I wonder how such rights could apply to software, if at all.
> this prompts a general question that has made me wonder for some time,
> and which becomes increasingly relevant:
> what's the general position about software whose author has lost
> interest in it? it seems a shame that others who would be keen to
> continue developing it are prevented or put off by supposed licences
> that are still supposedly in effect. perhaps such licences should
> carry an automatic self-destruct clause that would kick in unless the
> author expresses enough interest to take some simple action to defer
> it (like renewing a web domain).
Just because they have decided they don't want to develop the
software, does not remove that persons copyright to the software etc..
It still exists.. Those "supposed licences" are still in force, even
when they stop developing, its entirely upto the copyright holder what
happens to the software etc..
> did the recent Digital Rights bill have something on this point? i'm
> not up to date.
--
Chris Hughes
Jim Lesurf
<ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <512ac2e...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <URL:mailto:no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > So "he" will have started out "owning" the "copyright". But if he then
> > made statements agreeing to how copies can be used/published, he has
> > himself to then "comply" with what he said.
> He only has to carry on letting those other parties with a licence have
> the rights granted.
Indeed. But of course if he openly offerred that 'licence' to everyone as
permission to copy and publish with no caveats as to who could do so then
they could all take up the offer he made. So "those parties" could mean
everyone. The only way to avoid that is for the orginal 'licence'
conditions to say that it would only apply to those who informed him they
were taking up said 'licence' *before* he might later decide to withdraw
said 'licence', or some equivalent.
Like it or not, once an author has given permissions he can't take them
back unless he made being able to do that a condition at the outset.
Slainte,
Jim
Jim Lesurf
<ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <512ae2d...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <URL:mailto:no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > So if new types of standard "licence" conditions are invented they
> > could then be used *provided* they don't clash with what had already
> > been agreed.
> AIUI They can clash e.g. require payment, but they can't change any
> rights previously granted. (Any change of licence is a clash)
> I can think of various RISC OS titles that were 'PD' and then later
> versions are now commercial. Anyone who already has or obtains a copy of
> the PD version will still be covered by whatever 'PD' type licence it
> was made available with.
Depends on the conditions (if any) imposed on the orginal 'PD' version.
Also on if the later 'commercial' version is actually the same or is
altered or improved rather than being identical to the 'PD' version.
If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish without
having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally stop anyone else
who has a PD copy making further copies and distributing them. But if there
*were* conditions they will be bound by them.
> Even if the software is unchanged it can be commercialised, though it
> would be very difficult to enforce if the original licence allowed the
> software to passed onto third parties.
Indeed. Even if the author comes to regret what he did, he can't put the
toothpase back into the tube just because he would wish to. What he can do
will require him to 'comply' with his previous actions and their
consequences.
In practice what makes most sense here is for the author(s) to produce an
enhanced or improved version for commercial purposes. In such cases they
can then regard the PD version as at 'taster' to attract buyers.
>
> > If their are conflicts or inconsistencies to be resolved then either
> > those involved would have to agree/accept a situation, or to take it
> > to court if they so chose.
> >
> > The author(s) do start in a 'special' position as the creator of the
> > works if there are no other factors. Even if they have signed over all
> > the nominal copying "rights" to an employer or publisher they still
> > have some "rights" which in UK/EU law are non-assignable to anyone
> > else. So that is the 'default' starting position. Beyond that it is a
> > matter of what is agreed, etc.
> >
> > As before I have no idea about the details of the case relating to
> > AudioIn, so can't say what any of the above would mean in that case.
> I recently read an article pointing out that an Artist who sells a
> painting (even a commissioned one) still retains the rights of its
> photographic reproduction (unless written into the sale contract)!
> I wonder how such rights could apply to software, if at all.
TBH I regard the whole area of copyright (and IPR) law in countries like
the UK and USA to be shambolic at present. It seems largely to be for the
advantage of big companies and lawyers, not authors or those who have a
wish to have a copy. As some of the things we have discussed show, it is
very easy for an author to lose control, and also for those who would like
copies to find they can't get them - even if willing to pay the author or
publishers, etc.
A recent trivial example of this I've encountered is the children's books
written by Hugh Walters. They were published by Faber and have long been
out of print. The author is dead. A number of people would like to buy
copies to read and would be happy to pay the author's estate or publishers.
Yet no-one is clear who owns the rights or can be bothered. Hence only a
few willing to pay high prices (or get lucky in a second-hand shop) get to
read the books - with none of the higher prices going back to the author's
estate or original publishers.
Multiply that sort of problem many times over and apply it to all kinds of
works from music to computer software. This may suit some big companies who
can archive copyright ownerships and keep things off the market. But it
isn't very satisfactory for those who produce works or wish access to them.
Jim Nagel
> In message <3cf7592...@nails.ukonline.co.uk>
> Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
>> what's the general position about software whose author has lost
>> interest in it? it seems a shame that others who would be keen to
>> continue developing it are prevented or put off by supposed licences
>> that are still supposedly in effect. perhaps such licences should
>> carry an automatic self-destruct clause that would kick in unless the
>> author expresses enough interest to take some simple action to defer
>> it (like renewing a web domain).
> Those "supposed licences" are still in force, even
> when they stop developing, its entirely upto the copyright holder what
> happens to the software etc..
we know that, Chris. that's the problem. i repeat my next sentence,
which you quoted, which was my point:
>> perhaps such licences should carry an automatic self-destruct clause
>> that would kick in unless the author expresses enough interest to take
>> some simple action to defer it (like renewing a web domain).
and:
>> did the recent Digital Rights bill have something on this point? i'm
>> not up to date.
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
Dave Symes
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
[Snippy]
> Just because they have decided they don't want to develop the
> software, does not remove that persons copyright to the software etc..
> It still exists.. Those "supposed licences" are still in force, even
> when they stop developing, its entirely upto the copyright holder what
> happens to the software etc..
Rather a large PITA though, if you've paid for the original app, then paid
again for a few upgrades, use it to run an aspect of your business only to
find the author has effed off to foreign parts, and couldn't care less, so
problems are not fixed, and now never will be, as it really is an orphaned
app.
This orphaning of apps seems to happen a lot in the RO world, but at least
we have continued work being done on Organizer and one or two others by
new parties.
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Chris Hughes
Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Hughes wrote on 22 Jun:
>> In message <3cf7592...@nails.ukonline.co.uk>
>> Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
>>> what's the general position about software whose author has lost
>>> interest in it? it seems a shame that others who would be keen to
>>> continue developing it are prevented or put off by supposed licences
>>> that are still supposedly in effect. perhaps such licences should
>>> carry an automatic self-destruct clause that would kick in unless the
>>> author expresses enough interest to take some simple action to defer
>>> it (like renewing a web domain).
>> Those "supposed licences" are still in force, even
>> when they stop developing, its entirely upto the copyright holder what
>> happens to the software etc..
> we know that, Chris. that's the problem. i repeat my next sentence,
> which you quoted, which was my point:
>>> perhaps such licences should carry an automatic self-destruct clause
>>> that would kick in unless the author expresses enough interest to take
>>> some simple action to defer it (like renewing a web domain).
Not unless you change the copyrights laws around the world
> and:
>>> did the recent Digital Rights bill have something on this point? i'm
>>> not up to date.
No.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1e13602b...@o2.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snippy]
>> Just because they have decided they don't want to develop the
>> software, does not remove that persons copyright to the software etc..
>> It still exists.. Those "supposed licences" are still in force, even
>> when they stop developing, its entirely upto the copyright holder what
>> happens to the software etc..
> Rather a large PITA though, if you've paid for the original app, then paid
> again for a few upgrades, use it to run an aspect of your business only to
> find the author has effed off to foreign parts, and couldn't care less, so
> problems are not fixed, and now never will be, as it really is an orphaned
> app.
Whilst I understand your point. The only way is for others to buy up
those rights etc from the original authors/companies, etc.. Like APDL
did with Clares software, etc..
Other problem there is no money to had or at least very little in the
RO market and is unlikely to ever be now.
> This orphaning of apps seems to happen a lot in the RO world, but at least
> we have continued work being done on Organizer and one or two others by
> new parties.
Indeed.
> Dave
--
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> perhaps such licences should carry an automatic self-destruct
> >>> clause that would kick in unless the author expresses enough
> >>> interest to take some simple action to defer it (like renewing a
> >>> web domain).
>
> Not unless you change the copyrights laws around the world
Why not? A licence describes how you may use and distribute the
software. If the licence says "if x happens, then the whole package
becomes freeware", why does this require a change to the law?
B.
Dave Symes
> those rights etc from the original authors/companies, etc.. Like APDL
> did with Clares software, etc..
They were interested in the particular app in question, but AIUI the
author just lost the source.
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
druck
> The law says that if you are employed, the right to copy your works is
> owned by the employer. There is no clarity about what happens to stuff an
> employee creates in their spare time; in spite of what logic may dictate
> I think an employer may expect to gain copyright of anything you do in
> your spare time which relates to your job. AFAIK there has been no test
> case yet.
Always make sure your contract of employment has explicit exemptions for
any software you develop in your free time which isn't in direct
competition with the company's products or services.
---druck
Jim Lesurf
Indeed. This is one of the factors that can throttle later access to
something even if people were willing to pay.
The author can 'lose interest' in the passive sense of no longer selling
copies or taking an interest. But if it was their software and they haven't
given some kind of 'public domain' type of 'permission' by which they have
committed themselves to allow others to make and distribute copies then
they can at a later date regard any 'unauthorised' copying and publishing
by others as a breach of their rights and take action.
So as well as 'losing interest' they would also need to make a public
statement to show others are free to make copies if they wish to allow
this. If not, then anyone who makes and distributes copies could get into
trouble later on if their 'interest' revives - of if they wish to suppress
the work as being "early work that shows them in a poor light".
To make things worse, works can have their rights sold to a third party who
then loses interest, goes bust and is bought up, etc, etc. This can end up
with a situation where no-one even knows who has what rights. There may be
no clear owner. Or the owner may have no way to know.
Think of how many magazines and publishers go bust, merge, change hands,
lose their records, etc. Nightmare to unravel.
In such cases anyone else can decide to take the risk and make/publish
copies. But if they do they may end up with someone else deciding their
rights have been infinged. Thus many works end up in limbo with no legal or
open copies being made. No benefit to the author in this. In the end most
people forget the work exists or can use it or appreciate the skill of the
author. Crazy.
This situation has plagued printed works for many decades. Now also music
to a lesser extent. However the advantage with recordings is that the
rights lapse sooner. But it can still be annoying and crazy. The only
winners are big companies and lawyers.
David Holden
On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish without
> having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally stop anyone
> else who has a PD copy making further copies and distributing them.
Not so. Unless the original author specifically gives up "all rights" to the
software the fact that he has stated that it can be freely used and
distributed does not make that permission irrevocable unless the licence
specifically states that it is. If the 'licence' was freely given (ie. there
was no payment to the author) it can be revoked at any time.
Of course, if someone continued to use the software it is very doubtful if
there could (or would) be any sort of action taken, but distribution is
another matter entirely. In the past I have had letters from authors who had
decided to make PD or Shareware into commercial software of one type or
another and if I had ignored these and continued to distribute the software
based on the original permission I could have been in trouble.
If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given. .
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Simon Challands
druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
Surely you're not being employed in your own spare time, so they could
only possibly have a case if you do stuff in your own time using the
company's resources.
--
Simon Challands
druck
If you are a salaried professional (rather than paid an hourly wage),
there isn't the same distinction between your time and their time, they
are employing your skills and experience. Most contracts extend claims
to any use of those skills, unless specifically exempted.
---druck
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
There is no legal term of "freeware", in any case in your example, all
it means is you have made the software free, but copyright is still
owned by author, unless they revoke (provided its entirely their own
work etc), all their rights to the software, and that might not even
remote all rights because certain types of software licence don't
allow it, thus would require legal changes.
Its a minefield, and different rules can apply in different parts of
the world
--
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Not unless you change the copyrights laws around the world
>
> > Why not? A licence describes how you may use and distribute the
> > software. If the licence says "if x happens, then the whole package
> > becomes freeware", why does this require a change to the law?
>
> There is no legal term of "freeware"
Not that it matters. Put anything you like in there. You appear to be
suggesting that software licences are unable to contain time-dependant
clauses. Which is clearly a nonsense.
>, in any case in your example, all it means is you have made the
>software free, but copyright is still owned by author,
Who suggested otherwise?
B.
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish without
> > having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally stop anyone
> > else who has a PD copy making further copies and distributing them.
>
> Not so. Unless the original author specifically gives up "all rights" to the
> software the fact that he has stated that it can be freely used and
> distributed does not make that permission irrevocable unless the licence
> specifically states that it is. If the 'licence' was freely given (ie. there
> was no payment to the author) it can be revoked at any time.
Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be revoked.
No agreement can be changed without both/all parties agreement unless
special clauses about changes are included.
An author is free to stop making it available, but once it is out in the
wild with rights to pass it on, you can't put it back in the bottle.
> Of course, if someone continued to use the software it is very doubtful if
> there could (or would) be any sort of action taken, but distribution is
> another matter entirely. In the past I have had letters from authors who had
> decided to make PD or Shareware into commercial software of one type or
> another and if I had ignored these and continued to distribute the software
> based on the original permission I could have been in trouble.
>
> If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
> general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given. .
Whether payment is made or not doesn't change all parties rights &
obligations under an agreement/contract/licence.
Jim Lesurf
Indeed, and terms like "freeware" and others that are used may have their
meanings eventually decided in court on a case by case basis. Similarly
some types of 'licence' may be void or not apply in entirely in some places
and cases.
David Holden
On 23-Jun-2010, Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> n article <88c5sk...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
> <URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish
> > > without having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally
> > > stop anyone else who has a PD copy making further copies and
> > > distributing them.
> >
> > Not so. Unless the original author specifically gives up "all rights" to
> > the software the fact that he has stated that it can be freely used and
> > distributed does not make that permission irrevocable unless the licence
> > specifically states that it is. If the 'licence' was freely given (ie.
> > there was no payment to the author) it can be revoked at any time.
>
> Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be
> revoked. No agreement can be changed without both/all parties agreement
> unless special clauses about changes are included.
Then you understand wrong. Just think about the implications of this. What
you are saying is that a 'permission' once given can *never* be revoked. A
farmer who permits a hiker to walk across his field a few times can *never*
stop that person from doing the same at any time? If you allow your
neighbour to borrow your lawnmower you can't ever stop him from doing so in
the future?
It's a licence. The original author owns copyright. He/she can
change/withdraw/impose special condions at any time.
>
> An author is free to stop making it available, but once it is out in the
> wild with rights to pass it on, you can't put it back in the bottle.
>
Of course you can't. But that doesn't mean that the actions of people who
continue to act as if there were no restrictions are legal.
> > Of course, if someone continued to use the software it is very doubtful
> > if there could (or would) be any sort of action taken, but distribution
> > is
> > another matter entirely. In the past I have had letters from authors who
> > had decided to make PD or Shareware into commercial software of one
> > type or another and if I had ignored these and continued to distribute
> > the software based on the original permission I could have been in
> > trouble.
> >
> > If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
> > general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given. .
>
> Whether payment is made or not doesn't change all parties rights &
> obligations under an agreement/contract/licence.
Under English law it matters a LOT. Ask a solicitor. If you have paid then
you have the rights you've paid for. If you haven't paid you have exactly
the same.
Jim Lesurf
<ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <88c5sk...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
> <URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish
> > > without having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally
> > > stop anyone else who has a PD copy making further copies and
> > > distributing them.
> >
> > Not so. Unless the original author specifically gives up "all rights"
> > to the software the fact that he has stated that it can be freely used
> > and distributed does not make that permission irrevocable unless the
> > licence specifically states that it is. If the 'licence' was freely
> > given (ie. there was no payment to the author) it can be revoked at
> > any time.
> Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be
> revoked. No agreement can be changed without both/all parties agreement
> unless special clauses about changes are included.
> An author is free to stop making it available, but once it is out in the
> wild with rights to pass it on, you can't put it back in the bottle.
That is also my understanding based on various dealings with publishers
over the years and discussing such matters with the legal eagles of my uni.
I sometimes had to sort out quite complex situations where I was working
for the uni whilst doing contract work for a company, etc.
>
> > Of course, if someone continued to use the software it is very
> > doubtful if there could (or would) be any sort of action taken, but
> > distribution is another matter entirely. In the past I have had
> > letters from authors who had decided to make PD or Shareware into
> > commercial software of one type or another and if I had ignored these
> > and continued to distribute the software based on the original
> > permission I could have been in trouble.
> >
> > If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
> > general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given. .
> Whether payment is made or not doesn't change all parties rights &
> obligations under an agreement/contract/licence.
Again that is my understanding. A 'consideration' or payment being given
and accepted is evidence that agreement was made by both parties. But other
evidence of agreement may show the agreement was made. This is a matter of
establishing that the specific parties involved have an agreement.
FWIW a few years ago I got into an interesting situation when my old book
publisher (IoP press) sold their book business to a USA publisher. The book
contracts with IoP didn't cover this so nominally the rights reverted to
me. The new publisher offerred me a payment for me to accept to
establish that I agreed to the transfer of publisher. This gave me a chance
to alter the rights and conditions as suited me. But as others made plain
to me at the time *if* my original IoP contract had covered this I might not
have been able to do so provided the new publisher kept with the original
terms. All depended on the wording of the contract agreement.
Unfortunately, these areas can be mind-stunningly complex. The routine
wordings and practices in some cases may make some behaviour common, but
that does not mean they apply in all other circumstances.
As I wrote previously, I do think this whole area is badly in need
of reform with the aim of making things better for both authors and
the general public. It is bad enough to have problems with books or
music. But with software also becoming bogged down it can a real
headache for the future I fear!
Jim Lesurf
> On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish
> > without having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally
> > stop anyone else who has a PD copy making further copies and
> > distributing them.
> Not so.
AIUI it depends entirely on the wordings and circumstances. There is no
blanket default "not so" so far as I am aware.
> Unless the original author specifically gives up "all rights" to the
> software the fact that he has stated that it can be freely used and
> distributed does not make that permission irrevocable unless the licence
> specifically states that it is.
Sorry, I disagree. "rights" are not as monolithic as that. An author
can give some rights and not others. So could give open permission
for copies to be printed and disributed by anyone using pink notepaper,
but not by computer files or other means. Unless their initial wording
made plain how they could later revoke or withdraw this then they
could not remove this later. From then on others would be free to
print copies on pink notepaper and distribute them even if the
author changed his mind.
All depends on wordings, circumstances, etc. An author can't give
open permission for some conditions and then always withdraw later
regardless in all cases.
> If the 'licence' was freely given (ie. there was no payment to the
> author) it can be revoked at any time.
Only if the conditions said so at the outset in some appropriate way.
AIUI making a 'payment' is a mechanism for registering that a given
agreement about copying and publication has been made by the parties
involved. i.e. it is a 'marker' for legal reasons if there is a later
dispute. But in that sense it isn't really any different to being able
to call witnesses or documents with provenance.
Where there are problems is when no-one can clearly establish that
permission *was* given to publish or copy. Then, the author is by
default regarded as still having the relevant rights.
There are some special exceptions for some "rights" like the right
to be identified as the author, or forbidding publication in
a way that damages the reputation of the author. These always remain
with the author - even if a contract says otherwise! But failing these
an author who enters into an agreement is bound by it just as others.
Doesn't matter if the agreement has a fancy name like 'licence' or
if later on he wants to change his mind.
> If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
> general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given. .
There is also a distinction between giving such 'permissions' to specific
individual bodies one at a time with a specific agreement and making a
declaration open for all.
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 23-Jun-2010, Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > n article <88c5sk...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
> > <URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish
> > > > without having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally
> > > > stop anyone else who has a PD copy making further copies and
> > > > distributing them.
> > >
> > > Not so. Unless the original author specifically gives up "all rights" to
> > > the software the fact that he has stated that it can be freely used and
> > > distributed does not make that permission irrevocable unless the licence
> > > specifically states that it is. If the 'licence' was freely given (ie.
> > > there was no payment to the author) it can be revoked at any time.
> >
> > Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be
> > revoked. No agreement can be changed without both/all parties agreement
> > unless special clauses about changes are included.
>
> Then you understand wrong. Just think about the implications of this. What
> you are saying is that a 'permission' once given can *never* be revoked. A
> farmer who permits a hiker to walk across his field a few times can *never*
> stop that person from doing the same at any time?
If the farmer made a contract with the hiker granting him endless permission
with no specific revocation clause, then yes he wouldn't be able to revoke it.
In fact I believe that if you regularly allowing a right of way the courts have
decided that the right can become perpetual & irrevocable!
A license is just a particular type of contract.
> If you allow your
> neighbour to borrow your lawnmower you can't ever stop him from doing so in
> the future?
It all depends on what exactly is said.
> It's a licence. The original author owns copyright. He/she can
> change/withdraw/impose special condions at any time.
Only for new contracts unless the contract allows the granter to change it.
> >
> > An author is free to stop making it available, but once it is out in the
> > wild with rights to pass it on, you can't put it back in the bottle.
> >
> Of course you can't. But that doesn't mean that the actions of people who
> continue to act as if there were no restrictions are legal.
Providing they comply with contract the law will back them up.
> > > Of course, if someone continued to use the software it is very doubtful
> > > if there could (or would) be any sort of action taken, but distribution
> > > is
> > > another matter entirely. In the past I have had letters from authors who
> > > had decided to make PD or Shareware into commercial software of one
> > > type or another and if I had ignored these and continued to distribute
> > > the software based on the original permission I could have been in
> > > trouble.
> > >
> > > If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
> > > general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given. .
> >
> > Whether payment is made or not doesn't change all parties rights &
> > obligations under an agreement/contract/licence.
>
> Under English law it matters a LOT. Ask a solicitor. If you have paid then
> you have the rights you've paid for. If you haven't paid you have exactly
> the same.
Many contracts do not involve money being paid by either party but they are
just as inforceable.
Here endeth my contribution to this debate.
Jim Lesurf
> On 23-Jun-2010, Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> > n article <88c5sk...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
> > <URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22-Jun-2010, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the orginal gave people permission to make copies and publish
> > > > without having to ask the author then I don't think he can legally
> > > > stop anyone else who has a PD copy making further copies and
> > > > distributing them.
> > >
> > > Not so. Unless the original author specifically gives up "all
> > > rights" to the software the fact that he has stated that it can be
> > > freely used and distributed does not make that permission
> > > irrevocable unless the licence specifically states that it is. If
> > > the 'licence' was freely given (ie. there was no payment to the
> > > author) it can be revoked at any time.
> >
> > Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be
> > revoked. No agreement can be changed without both/all parties
> > agreement unless special clauses about changes are included.
> Then you understand wrong.
<ahem> ...or perhaps that you do. :-)
> Just think about the implications of this. What you are saying is that a
> 'permission' once given can *never* be revoked. A farmer who permits a
> hiker to walk across his field a few times can *never* stop that person
> from doing the same at any time?
Straw man argument detected. Perhaps with the bonus of employing the
'excluded middle'; debating method to blank out the real-world dependence
on details and circumstances. :-)
BTW Your attempted analogy may be poorly selected given the 'right to roam'
laws since a hiker may not actually need agreed permission in the first
place. :-)
> If you allow your neighbour to borrow your lawnmower you can't ever stop
> him from doing so in the future?
Interesting examples of an attempt to invent analogies that would only be
relevant according to circumstances, etc, you omit to deal with. :-)
> It's a licence. The original author owns copyright. He/she can
> change/withdraw/impose special condions at any time.
Within the limits set by any previous agreements, etc.
> > >
> > > If someone gives you a permission without a 'consideration' then (in
> > > general) that permission can be withdrawn as freely as it was given.
> > > .
> >
> > Whether payment is made or not doesn't change all parties rights &
> > obligations under an agreement/contract/licence.
> Under English law it matters a LOT. Ask a solicitor.
FWIW I *have* discussed such matters with legal eagles on more than one
occasion in the past. What I was told makes me think your views are
mistaken due to your understanding being over-simplified and failing to
take the circumstances into account in real cases.
Yes, in many circumstances payment is a clear sign of agreement having
taken place. But you can do that by other means. Either way, once agreement
has been made, one party can't then break the agreement unilaterally
*unless* the agreement specified they could and gave the relevant details
for when this could be done. Just as true for things called 'copyright' or
a 'licence' as for other civil contract agreements.
There are some special exemptions in copyright law - e.g. the right to be
identified as the author. But otherwise what either party can or cannot do
later will have to comply with what they already agreed *unless* they agree
to change. Not unilateral. This is why open public statements on
permissions, etc, can be problematic since the author may have no way to
get agreement with all the affected parties once the toothpaste is out of
the tube! :-)
BTW My own agreements in this area have been under a mix of English, Scots,
and USA law. Made life interesting at times. :-)
> If you have paid then you have the rights you've paid for. If you
> haven't paid you have exactly the same.
same what? Sorry that last part didn't read like English to me, I'm afraid.
Jess
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <88eco1...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
> <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23-Jun-2010, Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be
>> > revoked. No agreement can be changed without both/all parties
>> > agreement unless special clauses about changes are included.
>
>> Then you understand wrong.
>
> <ahem> ...or perhaps that you do. :-)
With the PD argument, I believe you would have been able to carry on
distributing any software that didn't have a termination clause,
however going along with the author's wishes would certainly be the
polite thing to do, and probably the sensible one too.
--
Jess Iyonix
David Holden
Then let's get specific.
Many years ago StrongEd was Shareware. The licence positively encouraged
people to distribute it. There were no restrictions. I was actually sent
copies by the author with the intention that, as a PD library, I would
distribute it.
Then the author sold distribution rights to (I think) Stallion Software who
wrote to me to tell me I must stop distributing it. I wrote back to them and
said that as the licence I had didn't originate from them I didn't see how
they could withdraw it [1] and asked them to get the author to write to me,
which he did. I therefore stopped distributing the program.
Although I had no intention of challenging this I took the opportunity to
seek advice from my professional association who had on call lawyers who
were experts on software licensing and copyright. The advice I got was that
had I not ceased distribution I could have been sued, both by the author and
the company who'd bought the distribution rights since my 'free'
distribution could have damaged sales of the commercial version and hence
the company's profits and also affected royalty payments to the author.
Now it may be that these experts' advice was wrong - but somehow I doubt it.
[1] In fact they did have the right since the exclusive right to distribute
had been transferred to them by the author, but I would have been entitled
to ask for proof of this.
Jess
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
But the situation you describe is shareware - which is usually a trial
version something you are supposed to pay for, it is not "freeware" so
I don't see that situation is the same.
--
Jess Iyonix
David Holden
> > entitledto ask for proof of this.
>
> But the situation you describe is shareware - which is usually a trial
> version something you are supposed to pay for, it is not "freeware" so
> I don't see that situation is the same.
It changes nothing. We're talking abou at *distribution* licence here, not
licence to *use*. The argument is that once someone has said that a program
may be freely distributed they can't withdraw that right, which in not the
case. With StrongEd the licence didn't place any pertinent restrictions,
time or otherwise on distribution. Certainly it was given to me on the
understanding that I would do so, As Shareware it was neither more nor less
copyright than any other piece of 'PD' or freeware but people were actually
encouraged to pass on copies (for obvious reasons) rather than just
permitted to do so, Nonetheless this 'licence' could be and was withdrawn.
Obviously it would require the copyright holder to inform people of this
withdrawal for it to be enforceable, which is why (as a mass distributor) I
was contacted directly. The situation would have been different for an
individual who was unaware of the change.
Jess
[snip]
>>
>> But the situation you describe is shareware - which is usually a trial
>> version something you are supposed to pay for, it is not "freeware" so
>> I don't see that situation is the same.
>
> It changes nothing. We're talking abou at *distribution* licence here, not
> licence to *use*. The argument is that once someone has said that a program
> may be freely distributed they can't withdraw that right, which in not the
> case. With StrongEd the licence didn't place any pertinent restrictions,
> time or otherwise on distribution. Certainly it was given to me on the
> understanding that I would do so, As Shareware it was neither more nor less
> copyright than any other piece of 'PD' or freeware but people were actually
> encouraged to pass on copies (for obvious reasons) rather than just
> permitted to do so, Nonetheless this 'licence' could be and was withdrawn.
>
> Obviously it would require the copyright holder to inform people of this
> withdrawal for it to be enforceable, which is why (as a mass distributor) I
> was contacted directly. The situation would have been different for an
> individual who was unaware of the change.
Shareware is basically an honesty box. Common sense says that in this
case an author would have the right to ask you to stop distributing
it, implicitly.
However freeware, (in the absence of conditions) is something you buy
for nothing. So why would the owner have the RIGHT to change his mind,
any more than if you bough 100 copies, saying, "sorry you can't sell
them."?
However, if they asked, in most cases, I am certain it would be the
PROPER thing to do. Just not mandatory.
--
Jess Iyonix
David Holden
On 24-Jun-2010, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Shareware is basically an honesty box. Common sense says that in this
> case an author would have the right to ask you to stop distributing
> it, implicitly.
>
No, it's not an 'honesty box'. It's a distribution method for commercial
software. I think this pretty much demonstrates your lack of understanding
of the field. Whether Shareware, Freeware or PD (in the UK) it's still
copyright. It's only the 'licence to use' that's different.
The only difference in the case of something like the StrongEd example is
that there's a clear potential financial loss to the copyright holder if
someone ignores his injunction to stop distributing so there's no problem
getting damages. This would also apply with any PD/Freeware program that had
moved over to commercial software. If the author just decided he no longer
wanted a program to be distributed then the legal position would be exactly
the same, it would just be more difficult to establish damages, so a legal
action would probably not be worthwhile.
> However freeware, (in the absence of conditions) is something you buy
> for nothing. So why would the owner have the RIGHT to change his mind,
> any more than if you bough 100 copies, saying, "sorry you can't sell
> them."?
>
If it's Freeware then, by definition, you haven't 'bought' it. Try to
understand that the author OWNS it. If the licence was bilateral (eg. you'd
paid) or it was specifically defined as 'perpetual' then he wouldn't have
the right to unilaterally change the distribution conditions. Since he gave
you the right unilaterally he can unilaterally remove or modify it. If you
don't think he can then why don't you tell me why not?
> However, if they asked, in most cases, I am certain it would be the
> PROPER thing to do. Just not mandatory.
It's obvious you just don't get it so I'm going to give up.
Jess
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 24-Jun-2010, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shareware is basically an honesty box. Common sense says that in this
>> case an author would have the right to ask you to stop distributing
>> it, implicitly.
>>
> No, it's not an 'honesty box'. It's a distribution method for commercial
> software. I think this pretty much demonstrates your lack of understanding
> of the field. Whether Shareware, Freeware or PD (in the UK) it's still
> copyright. It's only the 'licence to use' that's different.
Absolute rubbish. If shareware is supplied unprotected, then it relies
on the end user's honesty to pay for it. It is the same as an honesty
box. I made no claims that it wasn't a commercial distribution method.
[snip]
> It's obvious you just don't get it so I'm going to give up.
Which is why I have snipped it and not bothered answering, beyond
saying I find the posters arguing the opposite more convincing.
--
Jess Iyonix
Jim Lesurf
<Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23-Jun-2010, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > With the PD argument, I believe you would have been able to carry on
> > distributing any software that didn't have a termination clause,
> > however going along with the author's wishes would certainly be the
> > polite thing to do, and probably the sensible one too.
> Then let's get specific.
OK. :-)
> Many years ago StrongEd was Shareware. The licence positively encouraged
> people to distribute it. There were no restrictions. I was actually sent
> copies by the author with the intention that, as a PD library, I would
> distribute it.
What was the precise wording, etc, of the "Shareware" agreement? Without
that the above doesn't tell us what we'd need to know.
> Then the author sold distribution rights to (I think) Stallion Software
> who wrote to me to tell me I must stop distributing it. I wrote back to
> them and said that as the licence I had didn't originate from them I
> didn't see how they could withdraw it [1] and asked them to get the
> author to write to me, which he did. I therefore stopped distributing
> the program.
> Although I had no intention of challenging this I took the opportunity
> to seek advice from my professional association who had on call lawyers
> who were experts on software licensing and copyright. The advice I got
> was that had I not ceased distribution I could have been sued, both by
> the author and the company who'd bought the distribution rights since my
> 'free' distribution could have damaged sales of the commercial version
> and hence the company's profits and also affected royalty payments to
> the author.
Yes, anyone can decide to 'sue' you as that is a matter of someone having
the money and will to take a matter to a civil court. It does not prove you
would be in the wrong, or that they would win in court. Hence lawyers will
always tend to give you 'cautious' advice here. English law is riddled with
examples of people being hounded. Ask Simon Singh! :-)
So being told "you could be sued" does not mean you would have been in the
wrong. But it does mean you would be wise to desist if what you were doing
wasn't worth the hassle or cost.
> Now it may be that these experts' advice was wrong - but somehow I doubt
> it.
I can't say. You haven't given any of the specific details upon which a
judgement might end up being based. But I can understand your deciding to
back out of contesting it as the game would not be worth the candle. This
is a common problem. I can also understand you being happy to go along with
the author's new wishes even if they might not have been valid when tested
by a court.
> [1] In fact they did have the right since the exclusive right to
> distribute had been transferred to them by the author, but I would have
> been entitled to ask for proof of this.
I assume they would have had the right to make and sell copies in accord
with their agreement with the author. Not clear if they had any established
right to stop you from continuing on the basis of the prior agreement you
had with the author. Without the details impossible to say. Alas, although
you started by saying "let's get specific" you then haven't given any of
the specific details needed.
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 23-Jun-2010, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <512be42...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> > Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <88eco1...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
> > > <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> On 23-Jun-2010, Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Not as I understand it, unless there was a clause saying it could be
> > >> > revoked. No agreement can be changed without both/all parties
> > >> > agreement unless special clauses about changes are included.
> > >
> > >> Then you understand wrong.
> > >
> > > <ahem> ...or perhaps that you do. :-)
> >
> > With the PD argument, I believe you would have been able to carry on
> > distributing any software that didn't have a termination clause,
> > however going along with the author's wishes would certainly be the
> > polite thing to do, and probably the sensible one too.
>
> Then let's get specific.
>
> Many years ago StrongEd was Shareware. The licence positively encouraged
> people to distribute it. There were no restrictions. I was actually sent
> copies by the author with the intention that, as a PD library, I would
> distribute it.
Shareware licenses is a special case.
PD libraries especially if a charge is made is another special case.
I was thinking of private individuals who had obtain software under one of
the more 'standard' licenses, say a GPL!
> Then the author sold distribution rights to (I think) Stallion Software who
> wrote to me to tell me I must stop distributing it. I wrote back to them and
> said that as the licence I had didn't originate from them I didn't see how
> they could withdraw it [1] and asked them to get the author to write to me,
> which he did. I therefore stopped distributing the program.
>
> Although I had no intention of challenging this I took the opportunity to
> seek advice from my professional association who had on call lawyers who
> were experts on software licensing and copyright. The advice I got was that
> had I not ceased distribution I could have been sued, both by the author and
> the company who'd bought the distribution rights since my 'free'
> distribution could have damaged sales of the commercial version and hence
> the company's profits and also affected royalty payments to the author.
>
> Now it may be that these experts' advice was wrong - but somehow I doubt it.
>
> [1] In fact they did have the right since the exclusive right to distribute
> had been transferred to them by the author, but I would have been entitled
> to ask for proof of this.
>
Tim Hill
> special clauses about changes are included.
Tell that to Willie Walsh and hundreds of other companies who impose
changes to staff contracts on a daily basis. There is so often a clause
which says...we own your soul and can sell it on a whim
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
That comes back to a point I made earlier. That big companies, etc, do tend
to impose what they want on the basis that you'd have to stand up to them
in court if you want to resist. Witness all the examples of people who have
been unfairly dismissed or mistreated who then have to decide between a
long and costly battle or simply going elsewhere and writing off the bad
treatment.
The UK has the finest legal system that money can buy. :-) ...although I'd
agree it is a close race with the USA, so depends on the area of law. Their
advantages tend to be in areas like freedom of information and speech and
not having opressive exploitation of the costs of defamation suits.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> Absolute rubbish. If shareware is supplied unprotected, then it relies
> on the end user's honesty to pay for it. It is the same as an honesty
> box. I made no claims that it wasn't a commercial distribution method.
With respect, I think you should go back to the start of this thread
and read it (message <5ee7ff2951...@dsl.pipex.com>) again.
Whether it's freeware, shareware, commercial or anything else is
irrelevant to the core problem. The issue that's being discussed isn't
anything to do with how the software is paid for or not by the
end-user but how it's /distributed/ by 3rd parties. That, AIUI, is the
perspective that Dave Holden is talking about.
Dave Higton wrote a piece of software that depends upon Christian
Ludlam's AudioIn to function. The latter is currently not available as
Christian's site is no longer working. The problem is that the license
AudioIn was published under states that a copy of the source must be
provided along with the program itself by anyone wishing to distribute
it.
While Dave does have a copy of the version of AudioIn that was
suitable for use with his software, he doesn't have a copy of the
source code for the relevant version of AudioIn. If he makes AudioIn
available for download from /his/ site, he's in breach of the license
agreement and could potentially be sued for Breach of Contract.
All of the above AIUI and usual IANAL disclaimer applies, of course.
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Jim Lesurf
>
> Dave Higton wrote a piece of software that depends upon Christian
> Ludlam's AudioIn to function. The latter is currently not available as
> Christian's site is no longer working. The problem is that the license
> AudioIn was published under states that a copy of the source must be
> provided along with the program itself by anyone wishing to distribute
> it.
> While Dave does have a copy of the version of AudioIn that was suitable
> for use with his software, he doesn't have a copy of the source code
> for the relevant version of AudioIn. If he makes AudioIn available for
> download from /his/ site, he's in breach of the license agreement and
> could potentially be sued for Breach of Contract.
FWIW I agree with what you wrote. However to me the real problem here is
the 'civil law' mess that exists in the area of IPR. Various people might -
on the basis of what you wrote - arrive at all kinds of conclusions about
what Dave might now legally do, ranging from:
A) Distribute and refer people to the orginal author for the source
B) Publish nothing on the basis that without the source he can't
distribute.
On the way choosing between options like "Distribute his code and leave it
to each user to have or find their own copy of AudioIn".
Whatever, in the end this would only be decided on the basis of those
involved. i.e. either the original author would stay passive, or agree, or
argue, or sue. That then may end up in court to be settled, or people would
give up and accept some situation or other.
The above seems to me to generally be unsatisfactory in either legal or
moral terms - unless in a given case an agreement all were happy with did
emerge. In many cases it doesn't.
BTW There is currently on the BBC iPlayer a series on patents and
inventions (BBC Radio 7) that shows the deep unhappiness of many inventors,
etc, with the current laws on IPR. Basically, you can't get fair treatment
unless you are rich enough and determined enough and lucky enough. Listen
to the 'Tuesday' programme if you can before it vanishes to hear Dyson,
Bayliss, etc, on this.