GPL Software Gold Standard
PrussianSnow
packages are or are not under GPL or GPL compatible licensed I had an idea.
Would it be possible for some interested party, possibly the FSF itself, to
trademark a logo, colours, and/or other packaging dress which this party
chose to represent "GPL compatible only" products? Since this party would
own the logo/dress when used for distribution of software, couldn't they
conceivably grant anyone a license to freely use this dress under a given
set of conditions? For example, license the dress for use only on
CDs/DVDs/other media containing only software licensed under GPL compatible
licenses. Of course, "compatible" would be defined by the licenser in this
case. For example, what about registered colours and border patterns for use
around the edges of discs? Things that could be incorporated and combined
with other dress without undue interference but still remain obvious.
The idea is to allow parties distributing GPL software a method to indicate
to their customers that they believe in the importance of GPL compatibility.
And furthermore, to allow the customer quick identification of products that
have only GPL compatible licensing. Obviously, this wouldn't restrict anyone
from distributing GPL software under other dress or for those distributing
mixed license packages using whatever dress they choose--save the "GPL
dress." If the mark usage license was written to allow use on a "per disc"
basis, a distribution with some GPL compatible components and some non-GPL
components could be distributed as more than one disc but with the GPL marks
only on the compatibly licensed disc. For example, operating system
distributions with some proprietary extensions and applications not under
the GPL could be shipped with one for more "GPL dress" discs along with one
or more discs lacking the "GPL dress".
Anyone with some legal knowledge care to comment on the possibility?
Alexander Terekhov
PrussianSnow wrote:
[...]
> Anyone with some legal knowledge care to comment on the possibility?
The only thing that the GPL is "incompatible" with is the GPL
itself. FSF's "GPL incompatibility" claims are barred by the
doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale.
The GPL states it clearly that copies and derivative works
must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the
GPL. It just can't restrict anything else. The FSF theory of
derivative works is total crap, however.
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
Since you explicitly reply to a request for legal knowledge, I have to
ask what the basis of your legal knowledge is: Are you a certified
lawer, and if so, for which jurisdiction(s) are you certified? Is the
above text legal advice, and if so, in which jurisdiction(s) is it
valid?
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> Since you explicitly reply to a request for legal knowledge, I have to
> ask what the basis of your legal knowledge is:
Google.
> Are you a certified lawer, ...
No.
> Is the above text legal advice,
Same status as the FSF's GPL FAQ.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
Any legal theory is exactly as good as it holds up in the courts. The
FSF is a small organization without the means to go through year-long
legal fights. There is a large body of interesting software under its
copyright. And yet none of the big software outlets with large legal
departments have felt fit to try your theory in court.
For example, the netfilter team has recently forced quite a few
router producers to comply to the GPL by giving source code to their
products (such as Fujitsu-Siemens and Allnet). Don't tell me that
Fujitsu-Siemens would be unwilling to go to court if they stood a
reasonable chance of prevailing.
Sitecom tried dodging, cf
<URL:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/21/licence_germany/>, and
were nailed with a court injunction.
So you can see there is money in being able to dodge the GPL, and yet
nobody seems to be able to see this through court.
That's not exactly what I would call "total crap". If you think you
can persuade anybody in a court or jury differently, then I am sure
that you can get a high-paying job in the legal department of a large
technological outlet. I am sure that the managers would just love a
guarantee that somebody can let them ignore the GPL without
consequences.
Maybe you should make a legal insurance company? For a few thousand
dollars, you guarantee a large corporation that they may ignore the
"total crap" GPL linking guarantees of the FSF, and you will pay all
legal expense and damages any court might award against them.
Should be a safe business for you, and in fact there _are_ quite a
few outlets that offer indemnification centered around the GPL. They
just seem to be focused on slightly different guarantees than you
seem to be.
So why don't you make this your business? Indemnification against
netfilter alone should fill your coffers according to your theory.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> were nailed with a court injunction.
Or dear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Landgericht Muenchen I
Lenbachplatz 7 80316 Muenchen
Az: 21 O 6123/04
Einstweilige Verfuegung
In dem Rechtsstreit
Harald Welte, <snip> Berlin
- Antragsteller -
Prozessbevollmaechtigte:
Rechtsanwaelte Jaschinski Biere Brexl, <snip> Muenchen
Gz.: 131/04
gegen
Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch den Geschaeftsfuehrer Petter
Hemmer, <snip> Freising
- Antragsgegnerin -
wegen Unterlassung
erlaesst das Landgericht Muenchen I, 21. Zivilkammer am 2.4.2004
folgende
Einstweilige Verfuegung
1. Der Antragsgegnerin wird bei Meidung
- eines Ordnungsgeldes von EUR 5,- bis zu EUR 250.000,-, an dessen
Stelle im Falle der Uneinbringlichkeit eine Ordnungshaft bis zu 6
Monaten tritt, oder
- einer Ordnungshaft bis zu 6 Monaten, zu vollziehen am
Geschaeftsfuehrer fuer jeden einzelnen Fall der Zuwiderhandung
gemaess $$ 935ff, 890 ZPO
verboten
die Software "netfilter/iptables" zu verbreiten und/oder zu
vervielfaeltigen und/oder oeffentlich zugaenglich zu machen, ohne
entsprechend den Lizenzbedingungen der GNU General Public License,
Version 2 (GPL) dabei zugleich auf die Lizenzierung unter der GPL
hinzuweisen und den Lizenztext der GPL beizufuegen und den
Sourcecode der software "netfilter/iptables" lizenzgebuehrenfrei
zugaenglich zu machen.
2. Die Antragsgegnerin hat die Kosten des Verfahrens zu tragen
3. Der Streitwert wird auf 100.000,-- festgesetzt.
Kaess
Vors. Richter
am Landgericht
Mueller
Richter
am Landgericht
Rieger
Richter
am Landgericht
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has really nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Sitecom
appealed it, BTW.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
Ok, so after consulting with several lawyers and law professors, and
having seen through a lot of legal processes, legal negotiations with
large legal departments, and creating widely accepted legal documents,
you have decided to distill the gist of some questions that occurred
repeatedly into your postings.
So if your posting is the same status as the GPL FAQ:
What are the law professors that you have consulted to corroborate
your wisdom?
Against which large software outlets has your theory been tested and
prevailed? We are talking about things the size of Motorola (gcc
variants), Next computers (objective C Compiler), Fujitsu-Siemens and
Cisco (router software) and so on.
That is just a small number of companies that have decided to rather
fold than play their cards in court. And it is not that they are
easily bluffed out of litigation, especially when pitted against some
small charity with limited financial resources.
That's the background of the GPL FAQ.
Where is the background of your postings? It would appear that no
court, no legal department, nobody of importance would share your
opinion.
And so you turn to this Usenet group where still nobody shares your
opinion so that you can bask in your pipe dream that you are being
refuted here just because everybody is biased here.
Forget it. Out in the "real world", everybody is biased, too, it
would appear, including everybody in the legal profession.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Cisco (router software) and so on.
Dream on.
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/madwifi/madwifi/README?rev=1.19&view=auto
(see "The FCC requires...")
[...]
> nobody of importance would share your opinion.
Go read http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 archives.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > were nailed with a court injunction.
>
> Or dear.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Landgericht Muenchen I
> Lenbachplatz 7 80316 Muenchen
>
> Az: 21 O 6123/04
>
[...]
> It has really nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
It has everything to do with it. They used GPL code as part of their
product.
> Sitecom appealed it, BTW.
That's why they came into compliance afterwards?
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> It has everything to do with it. They used GPL code as part of their
> product.
Read it again, stupid. The injunction is about <quote> sourcecode
der software "netfilter/iptables" </quote>. Nothing more. Not even
derivative works.
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1303_0_3_0_C
<quote author=http://www.gcwf.com/gcc/GrayCary-C/Attorney-S/N-Sm/mradclif.doc_cvt.htm>
Yet the GPL remains a dangerous defense for defenders of open
source: the GPL is the basis for the open-source software industry,
yet no court has ever ruled on the enforceability or interpretation
of the agreement (one case relating to MySQL generated an opinion,
but the court deferred interpretation of the GPL and the case
settled). The language of the GPL is opaque and it has many
ambiguities: it does not establish a governing law, the scope of
"derivative works" that are governed by the GPL is unclear and the
legal effect of the FAQ (which are not part of the license itself)
is uncertain.
</quote>
Now, I like this:
http://media.april.org/audio/RMLL-2003/fixed/David-Turner.ogg
How can one seriously believe that contaminating food with "toxic
waste" (14:10 in the recording above) is legal?
regards,
alexander.
P.S.
http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-01-pi-MySQL.html
<quote>
The Court fully recognized the need for expert testimony at trial
about the GNU GPL and the technical facts at hand, particularly as
to why static linking of software components into a single, unified,
compiled binary forms a derivative work of the original components.
</quote>
Tell me why. Anyone.
Martin Dickopp
> Yet the GPL remains a dangerous defense for defenders of open source:
> the GPL is the basis for the open-source software industry,
The creators of the GPL are not interested in "open-source software".
> yet no court has ever ruled on the enforceability or interpretation
> of the agreement (one case relating to MySQL generated an opinion,
> but the court deferred interpretation of the GPL and the case
> settled).
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html
> The language of the GPL is opaque and it has many ambiguities: it does
> not establish a governing law, the scope of "derivative works" that
> are governed by the GPL is unclear
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/20/1544245
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/20/1544245
<quote>
The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the
rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been
modified. The situation is no different than the one where your
code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library,
say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined
with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL
section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and
only the GPL
</quote>
Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and
the doctrine of first sale. Neither static nor dynamic linking
constitute creation of a derivative work. Copyright protects
software as literacy works. "In order to operate" is completely
irrelevant. Copyright law doesn't establish exclusive right to
"combine" works. FSF's theory of derivative works is total crap.
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
http://www.zero-based.org/usenet/gnu.misc.discuss-20040512001.txt
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> http://www.zero-based.org/usenet/gnu.misc.discuss-20040512001.txt
I won't give you a link (that message contains a lot of
misunderstandings of copyright in general and software copyright
in particular). I'll just quote McOrmond. <quote> One of the
problems I find with the GPL is that it is written more like a
manifesto to explain why it exists rather than to use traditional
license terminology. While this is great in explaining the
principles of the GNU project, it makes understanding it in
connection with the laws and case-law of any given country just
that much harder. </quote> Now it's link time.
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art35.pdf
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
> http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art35.pdf
This is an article about how a large lobbying organization of
proprietary software vendors bought a law professor to write a study
which is favorable to them. Apparently, they got little for their
money, as the study largely drew conclusions from incorrect assumptions.
As usual, it is unclear what your point is. Do you want to point out
that even some law professors can be bought?
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> > http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art35.pdf
>
> This is an article about how a large lobbying organization of
> proprietary software vendors bought a law professor to write a study
> which is favorable to them.
Gack. What a spin. Almost like "blatant disrespect for democracy
in Europe" with respect to patents directive and the Council of
the European Union. This article is NOT about how a large lobbying
organization of proprietary software vendors bought a law professor.
> Apparently, they got little for their
> money, ...
100+ pages of quite interesting and informative reading.
regards,
alexander.
Stefan Monnier
>> Anyone with some legal knowledge care to comment on the possibility?
> The only thing that the GPL is "incompatible" with is the GPL itself.
I don't see the relation between the original question and your
supposed answer.
Stefan
Martin Dickopp
> Martin Dickopp wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>> > http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art35.pdf
>>
>> This is an article about how a large lobbying organization of
>> proprietary software vendors bought a law professor to write a study
>> which is favorable to them.
>
> This article is NOT about how a large lobbying organization of
> proprietary software vendors bought a law professor.
As usual, it remains totally unclear what you mean.
- Do you mean that the VSI is not large?
- Do you mean that lobbying is not one of the purposes of the VSI?
- Do you mean that the VSI is not an organzation?
- Do you mean that the VSI members are not proprietary software vendors?
- Do you mean that Prof. Dr. Gerald Spindler is not a professor?
- Do you mean that Prof. Dr. Gerald Spindler is not working in the field
of law?
- Do you mean that the VSI did not pay money to Prof. Dr. Gerald
Spindler to write the study?
- Do you mean that the study is not favorable to proprietary software
vendors?
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> As usual, it remains totally unclear what you mean.
You live in Dresden and can't read German?
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
> Martin Dickopp wrote:
> [...]
>> As usual, it remains totally unclear what you mean.
>
> You live in Dresden and can't read German?
Huh? What does that have to do with it? I was replying to a statement
made by you in /English/.
Just to make sure that nothing fishy is going on, the link you posted
takes me to an article entitled "Die scharfe Klinge des Gesetzes?"
That's what you intended, right?
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> Just to make sure that nothing fishy is going on, the link you posted
> takes me to an article entitled "Die scharfe Klinge des Gesetzes?"
> That's what you intended, right?
Right. Now tell me what is this article about.
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
Alexander Terekhov
You should first read it. Next read the study.
http://www.vsi.de/inhalte/aktuell/studie_final_safe.pdf
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
> Martin Dickopp wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> > Martin Dickopp wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Just to make sure that nothing fishy is going on, the link you posted
>> >> takes me to an article entitled "Die scharfe Klinge des Gesetzes?"
>> >> That's what you intended, right?
>> >
>> > Right. Now tell me what is this article about.
>>
>> I already did.
>
> You should first read it. Next read the study.
I have read both the article and the study. (The latter when it came
out; I haven't re-read it just now.)
Martin
Rui Miguel Seabra
> Read it again, stupid. The injunction is about <quote> sourcecode
> der software "netfilter/iptables" </quote>. Nothing more. Not even
> derivative works.
Marvellous. According to your theory, then, they would have to ship only
their alterations without the whole base it is derived from.
Good luck to their non-working equipment! :)
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 12:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Read it again, stupid. The injunction is about <quote> sourcecode
> > der software "netfilter/iptables" </quote>. Nothing more. Not even
> > derivative works.
>
> Marvellous. According to your theory, then, they would have to ship only
> their alterations without the whole base it is derived from.
According the my theory they would have to make the entire GPL'd
stuff and derivative works thereof (if any) available in the
source code form free of royalties under the terms of the GPL.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> I have read both the article and the study. (The latter when it came
> out; I haven't re-read it just now.)
Your reading comprehension must be exceptionally low (in addition
to inability to connect the dots, so to say).
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
Your assumption that I'm stupid just because I disagree with you (and
with the author of the article, and with the author of the study) is
incorrect.
In fact, the fact that you apparently have to resort to statements like
the above tells us more about yourself than the link collections you
usually like to post.
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> Your assumption that I'm stupid just because I disagree with you (and
> with the author of the article, and with the author of the study) is
> incorrect.
You can disagree as much as you want (your "arguments" suck and you
know it) but that doesn't excuse misrepresentation (now I'm presuming
that you have read and comprehended both the study and the article).
regards,
alexander.
Martin Dickopp
I asked you already several postings ago a number /concrete/ questions
to find out which part of my characterisation of the article you think
is wrong. Instead of replying, you have resorted to broad and general
accusations. Therefore, my arguments cannot "suck" because we're not
arguing at all (i.e. I haven't posted any arguments), and we're not
arguing because when it gets concrete, you evade the issue.
Martin
Alexander Terekhov
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
> I asked you already several postings ago a number /concrete/ questions
> to find out which part of my characterisation of the article you think
Your "characterisation" of the article was nothing but spin. It is
clear indictation that your arguments (if any) suck and you know it.
regards,
alexander.