how much is too much?
Chad Whitacre
I'm trying to determine what the threshold is in terms of lines of code
I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL myself.
Is this issue spelled out anywhere?
Thanks.
Chad Whitacre
http://www.zetadev.com/
Alfred M. Szmidt
code I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL
myself.
In general, the threshold is zero lines, since it depends on what you
copy. If the code you copy is non-trivial, even if it fits on "one
line"[0], then copyright law goes into effect. So if you need to copy
anything and you cannot write it from scratch without looking at the
code as reference, then the code is non-trivial and copyright law will
apply (and in this case, the GPL).
[0]: "One line" can mean anything really, I could fit the GCC source
code on "one line".
I'm not a lawyer, and all the other usual disclaimers....
David Kastrup
> I'm trying to determine what the threshold is in terms of lines of
> code I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL
> myself.
>
> Is this issue spelled out anywhere?
You don't "come under the GPL". The original code is under the GPL,
and to use it, you have to heed its licence. It may not be
distributed as part of something not under the GPL.
The copyright laws of your land determine what amount of code is
actually necessary before you overstep your default legal rights and
require specific license by the copyright holder (which would then be
the GPL).
As a rule of thumb, the FSF requires for contributions copyright
assignments for changes of more than about 10 or 15 lines, unless
those changes are purely mechanical. It is not more than a rule of
thumb: of course just removing all newlines does not make copyright go
away.
So that would be a ballpark figure for maintaining sole legal
responsibility if you are careful.
Now if your goal is to be reasonably safe from cease-and-desist orders
and similar: few people are going to sue for 15 lines or have a chance
to prevail, and replacing them usually is not much of an issue. Your
code does not come under GPL under any interpretation of the law: it
is just that putting it under the GPL is the simplest way to comply
with copyright law. Another way, of course, is to remove the
offending code and replace it with something you wrote yourself.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Isaac
> Hey all,
>
> I'm trying to determine what the threshold is in terms of lines of code
> I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL myself.
>
> Is this issue spelled out anywhere?
If your copying would otherwise be copyright infringement, then you
would have to accept the requirements of the GPL to avoid infringement.
Under US law there is no guideline or thumbrule based on law indicating
how much copying is too much.
Isaac
Per Abrahamsen
> I'm trying to determine what the threshold is in terms of lines of code
> I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL myself.
>
> Is this issue spelled out anywhere?
It depends on local interpretation of copyright law.
The FSF use 10 normal lines as a very rough guideline for accepting
patches without explicit copyright assignment. This doesn't mean that
10 lines is the law, but that the FSF themselves are unlikely to sue
over such trivial code pieces.
David Kastrup
Uh, no. That means that the FSF themselves believe that they are
unlikely to get sued over such trivial code pieces. And that they
believe nobody could claim based on that that the FSF has dirty hands
when they sue for copyright misuse themselves.
Chad Whitacre
Thanks for the reply.
> If the code you copy is non-trivial ... then copyright law goes into
> effect.
So the criterion is triviality? Do you know if this is documented
anywhere? I don't see it in the GPL itself, and a cursory googling for
"non-trivial gpl" doesn't turn up anything definitive-looking.
chad
David Kastrup
> > If the code you copy is non-trivial ... then copyright law goes
> > into effect.
>
> So the criterion is triviality? Do you know if this is documented
> anywhere? I don't see it in the GPL itself, and a cursory googling
> for "non-trivial gpl" doesn't turn up anything definitive-looking.
It has nothing to do with the GPL. It is copyright law. It applies
only to works of "sufficient creative height" (that's more or less a
translation of the respective German term).
So please read up on the copyright laws of your land. The GPL does
not tell you what it takes until copyright applies. It only tells you
your rights _when_ it applies.
John Hasler
> So the criterion is triviality?
The criterion is whether it is a protected element under copyright law.
> Do you know if this is documented anywhere?
Copyright case law. Most likely ten lines or less would be classified as
"de mininmus" in the US but if you are planning to distribute the work
under closed-source terms you should consult your attorney.
> I don't see it in the GPL itself, and a cursory googling for "non-trivial
> gpl" doesn't turn up anything definitive-looking.
This isn't about the GPL. It's about copyright.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Alfred M. Szmidt
Per Abrahamsen
> Per Abrahamsen <abr...@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>
>> Chad Whitacre <ch...@zetaweb.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm trying to determine what the threshold is in terms of lines of code
>>> I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL myself.
>>>
>>> Is this issue spelled out anywhere?
>>
>> It depends on local interpretation of copyright law.
>>
>> The FSF use 10 normal lines as a very rough guideline for accepting
>> patches without explicit copyright assignment. This doesn't mean
>> that 10 lines is the law, but that the FSF themselves are unlikely
>> to sue over such trivial code pieces.
>
> Uh, no.
Uh, yes.
> That means that the FSF themselves believe that they are
> unlikely to get sued over such trivial code pieces.
Yes. And if they don't believe others will be able to successfully
sue them over such trivial code pieces, they are not likely to believe
they themselves will be able to successfully sue others over the same.
David Kastrup
10 lines is the defensive line of the FSF. I think it likely that the
limit where they will progress to lawsuit themselves would be larger.
Chad Whitacre
Understood. Thanks to all for the clarification.
> if you are planning to distribute the work under closed-source terms
I'm actually considering a dedication to the public domain. So to
clarify the direct issue: My understanding is that I cannot take code
that is under the GPL and copy/paste it into a project that I want to
dedicate to the public domin. Correct?
A further question: can GPL code be safely included in a package
released under the LGPL?
I.e., would it be possible to package all GPL code that I want to use in
an LGPL library and use that from a public domain package?
chad
Alfred M. Szmidt
license unless you are the soul copyright holder of said work. You
really should read the GPL FAQ[0], since most of your questions are
already answered there.
David Kastrup
> > This isn't about the GPL. It's about copyright.
>
> Understood. Thanks to all for the clarification.
>
>
>> if you are planning to distribute the work under closed-source terms
>
> I'm actually considering a dedication to the public domain. So to
> clarify the direct issue: My understanding is that I cannot take
> code that is under the GPL and copy/paste it into a project that I
> want to dedicate to the public domin. Correct?
Quite so.
> A further question: can GPL code be safely included in a package
> released under the LGPL?
If the total is released under the GPL.
> I.e., would it be possible to package all GPL code that I want to
> use in an LGPL library and use that from a public domain package?
Look, "public domain" means that everybody is allowed to do whatever
he wants with the product (including releasing proprietary versions).
It completely escapes me how you can imagine to have the right to do
that.
John Hasler
> I'm actually considering a dedication to the public domain. So to clarify
> the direct issue: My understanding is that I cannot take code that is
> under the GPL and copy/paste it into a project that I want to dedicate to
> the public domin. Correct?
You must release the work as a whole under the terms of the GPL, but you
can release the portion of which you are sole author under any terms you
wish.
> A further question: can GPL code be safely included in a package released
> under the LGPL?
No. Otherwise the GPL would be equivalent to the LGPL.
Stefan Monnier
> I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL myself.
Two easy answers:
- somehow arrange so that you can redistribute this part of "your" code
under the GPL.
- ask the author for permission.
Stefan
Chad Whitacre
>>use in an LGPL library and use that from a public domain package?
>
> Look, "public domain" means that everybody is allowed to do whatever
> he wants with the product (including releasing proprietary versions).
>
> It completely escapes me how you can imagine to have the right to do
> that.
By "use" I meant in linked fashion. My thought was to make the
functionality of the GPL'd code available to the public domain code via
an LGPL'd library. Either way the answer appears to be "no."
In general I am trying to get educated on the whole copyright/licensing
issue. Distinguishing between the two was a first step, the GPL FAQ is
explaining more.
The bottom line seems to be that the street between copyleft and
non-copyleft free software only runs one way: copyleft can incorporate
non-copyleft and retain its identity, but not the other way around.
I.e., the GPL's hegemony extends to non-copyleft free software as much
as to proprietary software. Accurate?
chad
David Kastrup
>>>I.e., would it be possible to package all GPL code that I want to
>>>use in an LGPL library and use that from a public domain package?
>> Look, "public domain" means that everybody is allowed to do whatever
>> he wants with the product (including releasing proprietary versions).
>> It completely escapes me how you can imagine to have the right to do
>> that.
>
> By "use" I meant in linked fashion. My thought was to make the
> functionality of the GPL'd code available to the public domain code
> via an LGPL'd library. Either way the answer appears to be "no."
What gives you the right to change the GPL to LGPL?
> In general I am trying to get educated on the whole
> copyright/licensing issue. Distinguishing between the two was a
> first step, the GPL FAQ is explaining more.
Well, for one thing, if you get a license for something, it is not
your option to change the conditions of the license.
If you want different conditions, ask the copyright holder.
> The bottom line seems to be that the street between copyleft and
> non-copyleft free software only runs one way: copyleft can
> incorporate non-copyleft and retain its identity, but not the other
> way around. I.e., the GPL's hegemony extends to non-copyleft free
> software as much as to proprietary software. Accurate?
No. GPLed code is not convertible into other licenses, but that does
not mean that other code is convertible to the GPL. There are
actually very few licenses that allow rereleasing as GPL.
Chad Whitacre
Helpful, thank you.
chad
Jose Molina
and it is distributed as a part of a GNU/Linux distro, and I link a GPL
program against it, is it permitted by the GPL terms, I mean, can this
library be considered part of the operating system?. The specific case is
OpenMotif on a RedHat system. I was going to link a GPL'ed program (not
developed by me) against it.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+jmolina=corpm...@gnu.org
[mailto:gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+jmolina=corpm...@gnu.org]En nombre
de David Kastrup
Enviado el: Miercoles, 25 de Mayo de 2005 11:58
Para: gnu-misc...@gnu.org
Asunto: Re: how much is too much?
Chad Whitacre <ch...@zetaweb.com> writes:
_______________________________________________
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc...@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alfred M. Szmidt
GPLed code is not convertible into other licenses, but that does
not mean that other code is convertible to the GPL. There are
actually very few licenses that allow rereleasing as GPL.
And lets not confuse relicensing with rereleasing. The former
requireing the copyright holders permission, the later whatever the
license says. So if you rerelease some BSD licensed code under the
GPL (without making any modifications, to make things simple), you
can't remove the BSD copyright notice, since the work is still
licensed under original license. Compare this with Public Domain,
which would allow you to do what ever you wish.
Chad Whitacre
Not you, apparently. :-p
chad
Chad Whitacre
> non-copyleft free software only runs one way: copyleft can incorporate
> non-copyleft and retain its identity, but not the other way around.
> I.e., the GPL's hegemony extends to non-copyleft free software as much
> as to proprietary software. Accurate?
Actually I suppose we would say that there is no street between copyleft
and proprietary, so the relationship is not entirely parallel. Ok, how
about a little ascii art. :-)
copyleft <---- non-copyleft ----> proprietary
| ^ | ^
| | | |
`--' `--'
- copyleft can incorporate copyleft and non-copyleft software
- non-copyleft can incorporate non-copyleft software
- proprietary can incorporate non-copyleft software
So copyleft gets two-thirds of the pie, while the others only get
one-third, so to speak. And of course, this refers to incorporation of
code rather than external usage via pipes, etc.
chad
Chad Whitacre
Not sure myself, but perhaps this FAQ helps?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
chad
Jose Molina wrote:
> I have a question. If I have a library that is not Free (by FSF standards),
> and it is distributed as a part of a GNU/Linux distro, and I link a GPL
> program against it, is it permitted by the GPL terms, I mean, can this
> library be considered part of the operating system?. The specific case is
> OpenMotif on a RedHat system. I was going to link a GPL'ed program (not
> developed by me) against it.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+jmolina=corpm...@gnu.org
> [mailto:gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+jmolina=corpm...@gnu.org]En nombre
> de David Kastrup
> Enviado el: Miercoles, 25 de Mayo de 2005 11:58
> Para: gnu-misc...@gnu.org
> Asunto: Re: how much is too much?
>
>
Chad Whitacre
> You must release the work as a whole under the terms of the GPL, but you
> can release the portion of which you are sole author under any terms you
> wish.
Hmmm ... ok, so I suppose the licensing under the GPL would have to
antedate the "overt act of relinquishment" by which the code is
dedicated to the public domain, since the GPL depends on copyright?
> No. Otherwise the GPL would be equivalent to the LGPL.
Thanks for the straight answer.
chad
José Molina
Jose
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Chad Whitacre [mailto:ch...@zetaweb.com]
Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Mayo de 2005 12:32
Para: Jose Molina
Asunto: linking GPL to non-GPL
John Hasler
> Hmmm ... ok, so I suppose the licensing under the GPL would have to
> antedate the "overt act of relinquishment" by which the code is dedicated
> to the public domain, since the GPL depends on copyright?
No. Distributing a copy of your work under the GPL is not some kind of
global act that forbids you to distribute a different copy under different
terms. You own the copyright and can do with it as you wish.
If a work is a derivative a work licensed under the GPL (i.e., contains
elements of a GPL'd work) _the work as a whole_ may only be licensed under
the GPL. Combining a GPL work with a public domain work produces a
derivative that may only be distributed under the GPL, but the public
domain work remains in the public domain.
You can place the portion of the work that is entirely of your authorship
in the public domain and simultaneously (or later, or earlier) distribute
the combination of your work and a GPL work under the GPL.
John Hasler
> - copyleft can incorporate ... non-copyleft software
Not true.
> - non-copyleft can incorporate non-copyleft software
Not true.
> - proprietary can incorporate non-copyleft software
Not true.
I'm assuming that by "copyleft" you mean the GPL and LGPL, by
"non-copyleft" you mean all other "Open Source" licenses, and by
"proprietary you mean all other licenses.
John Hasler
> The specific case is OpenMotif on a RedHat system. I was going to link a
> GPL'ed program (not developed by me) against it.
You can do anything you want on your own computer. The GPL only comes into
effect when you distribute.
Alfred M. Szmidt
program free. The BSD license is a non-copyleft free software license
for example, the Affero GPL is a coptleft free software license (that
is incompatible with the GPL).
A free software license (this includes copyleft licenses) is just a
license that permits a user to excersise the four freedoms.
Once again, see www.gnu.org for further details.
Isaac
> Jose Molina writes:
>> The specific case is OpenMotif on a RedHat system. I was going to link a
>> GPL'ed program (not developed by me) against it.
>
> You can do anything you want on your own computer. The GPL only comes into
> effect when you distribute.
Well, the copyright statute says that one of the exclusive rights of the
copyright holder is the *preparation* of derivative works. (See 17 USC 106).
You don't have to distribute or copy such works in order to infringe.
Creating a derivative work without is enough. It is not clear to me
that the literal words of 2(a) of the GPL do not apply to someone who
modifies code on his own system. I cannot imagine that most people
are interested in applying the GPL to a user who modifies code on his
own system, but maybe someone might want to do so in some limited
special situations.
Maybe linking against motif does not create a derivative work, maybe
motif is a system library, and maybe some exception to the copyright
holder's exclusive rights applies.
Isaac
John Hasler
> Well, the copyright statute says that one of the exclusive rights of the
> copyright holder is the *preparation* of derivative works. (See 17 USC
> 106). You don't have to distribute or copy such works in order to
> infringe. Creating a derivative work without is enough. It is not clear
> to me that the literal words of 2(a) of the GPL do not apply to someone
> who modifies code on his own system.
I think that 17 USC 117 applies here. I also think that the infringement
would be ruled de minimus.
Isaac
> Isaac writes:
>> Well, the copyright statute says that one of the exclusive rights of the
>> copyright holder is the *preparation* of derivative works. (See 17 USC
>> 106). You don't have to distribute or copy such works in order to
>> infringe. Creating a derivative work without is enough. It is not clear
>> to me that the literal words of 2(a) of the GPL do not apply to someone
>> who modifies code on his own system.
>
> I think that 17 USC 117 applies here. I also think that the infringement
> would be ruled de minimus.
Yes arguably 17 USC applies, but I don't see any reason to consider the
infringement de minimus. OTOH, I don't believe that linking to motif
creates a derivative work either.
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Chad writes:
> > I'm actually considering a dedication to the public domain. So to clarify
> > the direct issue: My understanding is that I cannot take code that is
> > under the GPL and copy/paste it into a project that I want to dedicate to
> > the public domin. Correct?
>
> You must release the work as a whole under the terms of the GPL, but you
> can release the portion of which you are sole author under any terms you
> wish.
>
> > A further question: can GPL code be safely included in a package released
> > under the LGPL?
>
> No.
Wrong. The package is a compilation, not a derivative work.
> Otherwise the GPL would be equivalent to the LGPL.
Go read <http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf> "The LGPL Alternative".
regards,
alexander.
P.S. But first sale preempts them both anyway (see "Accepting the GPL").
David Kastrup
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> Chad writes:
>> > I'm actually considering a dedication to the public domain. So to clarify
>> > the direct issue: My understanding is that I cannot take code that is
>> > under the GPL and copy/paste it into a project that I want to dedicate to
>> > the public domin. Correct?
>>
>> You must release the work as a whole under the terms of the GPL, but you
>> can release the portion of which you are sole author under any terms you
>> wish.
>>
>> > A further question: can GPL code be safely included in a package released
>> > under the LGPL?
>>
>> No.
>
> Wrong. The package is a compilation, not a derivative work.
While Alexander is sure to be the only person in the world
knowledgable about the law, it is an unfortunate thing that his
opinions are neither shared by the typical GPL licensor (like the
FSF), so heeding Alexander's advice is likely to get you into a court,
nor by the judges, so heeding Alexander's advice is likely to cause
you financial damages.
It turns out that in the few cases where the defendant did not choose
to settle out of court, the GPL has quite consistently been upheld.
Anyway, "compilation" means something entirely different in the
context of the law and of computing.
Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Isaac writes:
> > Well, the copyright statute says that one of the exclusive rights of the
> > copyright holder is the *preparation* of derivative works. (See 17 USC
> > 106). You don't have to distribute or copy such works in order to
> > infringe. Creating a derivative work without is enough. It is not clear
> > to me that the literal words of 2(a) of the GPL do not apply to someone
> > who modifies code on his own system.
>
> I think that 17 USC 117 applies here.
But not here. AFAIK, except bug fixing, the German law doesn't have
17 USC 117 like exception for (private) software "Bearbeitungen"
(copyrightable derivative works) and "Umgestaltungen" (uncopyrightable
derivative works, so to speak). But that exclusive right doesn't expand
to "Sammelwerke" (compilations), fortunately. And "first sale" applies
regarding lawfully "acquired" (for free including, except "online
services") material objects, thanks god. I'm not sure about copyright
misuse (another defense against FSF's SCOish claims) -- seems to be
pure US concept. Classic unenforceable unfair contract terms thing
comes pretty close, but the FSF stubbornly claims that the [L]GPL is
not a contract... so go figure, y'know. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> I'm not sure about copyright misuse (another defense against FSF's
> SCOish claims) -- seems to be pure US concept. Classic unenforceable
> unfair contract terms thing comes pretty close, but the FSF
> stubbornly claims that the [L]GPL is not a contract... so go figure,
> y'know. ;-)
What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission? You don't
need to agree to the conditions of the GPL if you are not in the mood.
The GPL states so itself in Term 5.
The GPL grants you certain freedoms that you would not have without
it. If you don't want them, you can leave them alone. But you are
not free to grab more than what was offered to you.
This is not enforcing the license. It is enforcing the copyright from
which you were only given relief under conditions you chose not to
accept.
John Hasler
> What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
the copyright owner.
Isaac
>
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> Isaac writes:
>> > Well, the copyright statute says that one of the exclusive rights of the
>> > copyright holder is the *preparation* of derivative works. (See 17 USC
>> > 106). You don't have to distribute or copy such works in order to
>> > infringe. Creating a derivative work without is enough. It is not clear
>> > to me that the literal words of 2(a) of the GPL do not apply to someone
>> > who modifies code on his own system.
>>
>> I think that 17 USC 117 applies here.
>
> But not here. AFAIK, except bug fixing, the German law doesn't have
> 17 USC 117 like exception for (private) software "Bearbeitungen"
> (copyrightable derivative works) and "Umgestaltungen" (uncopyrightable
Are you sure? I thought the EU copyright directive required states
to provide some 17 USC 117 protections. It would be a mistake to
suggest that 17 USC 117 authorizes the general creation of derivative
or collective works on ones own system. 17 USC 117 covers modifications
required to run programs when one ones a copy. IMO that would include
linking code to a library, but might not cover rewriting the library
to add new functionality.
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> > But not here. AFAIK, except bug fixing, the German law doesn't have
> > 17 USC 117 like exception for (private) software "Bearbeitungen"
> > (copyrightable derivative works) and "Umgestaltungen" (uncopyrightable
>
> Are you sure? I thought the EU copyright directive required states
> to provide some 17 USC 117 protections.
Well, I think it boils down to interpretation of "intended purpose."
http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/en/eu/eu020en.html
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/__69c.html
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/__69d.html
http://groups.google.de/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/7ae912d5c7261755
(contu6)
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> 17 USC 117 covers modifications required to run programs when one
ones a copy. IMO that would include linking code to a library,
I don't think so. Think of a "package" in source code - a tarball of
linked (some modules reference others modules) components. What does
it have to do with 17 USC 117 as far as preparation and distribution
of that "package" is concerned? Nothing, I think.
And a single "executable" is just another (binary) form.
> but might not cover rewriting the library to add new functionality.
Agreed.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-May/000260.html
(Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL)
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> This is hilarious.
>
> http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-May/000260.html
> (Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL)
Well, the guy is totally confused. Of course the code he wrote is
likely owned by the company that paid him for writing it. And of
course the scripts don't come magically under the GPL. The complete
product, of course, can't be distributed ignoring the GPL. Whether
the scripts have to be considered integral part or just an aggregation
is a different question, and this will affect whether the company
_has_ to choose the GPL for the scripts as well (if they prefer to
avoid getting sued by the netfilter authors), or are more free in
their choice of license.
In all cases, the GPL does not affect ownership of the code at all.
It only affects in which form and manner the complete product may or
may not be distributed. From what he writes, it seems plausible that
his former employer might be in violation of the GPL, but that has
nothing to do at all with the claims between him and the company, and
he should get competent legal advice as fast as he can. While the
question of GPL compliance might cause his company independent
trouble, it is completely irrelevant to his case.
Even if the company chose to release the complete code under the GPL
eventually, he is _not_ allowed to work with it (if it was contract
work) unless he received a copy of it via a regular distribution
channel.
If he independently rewrote it, then he should make sure that no
no-compete clause in the contracts blocks him from doing that.
Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote:
>
> [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
> > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
>
> It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
> the copyright owner.
Right.
http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/49f50be07eddfef7
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
>> > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
>>
>> It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
>> the copyright owner.
>
> Right.
I'd not call that "enforce". I'd call that "cite", or at best
"invoke". It's basically saying "I had license to do that, so get off
my back". That's not enforcement.
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and
> > > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the !GPL
http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/3e61597328a70ac5
context,
> >
> > It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
> > the copyright owner.
>
> Right.
>
> http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/49f50be07eddfef7
----
From: 64bi...@microsoft.com Add to Address Book
To: terekhov@<snip>
Subject: Windows XP 64-Bit Edition - Order Confirmation
Thank you for your order. Please note that Microsoft does not provide
technical or other support for this product. You can visit
http://support.microsoft.com for self service support options.
Please keep this e-mail as a record of your product key, which is
required to install the software.
Download:
Click the following link:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/<snip>
The file will be in ISO format and must be burned to a CD before you
can install the software on your computer.
The download files are large so the download may take a considerable
time to complete. Microsoft recommends only those with broadband, ADSL
or other high-speed Internet connections attempt this download.
You will need the following product key to complete the software
installation process:
PRODUCT KEY: <snip>
Don't Lose This Product Key!
You must use it to install this software.
Order Details:
Please save this mail receipt for your records.
Order ID: 15RDLN8TKQ9J8MG4EDE3BK4SC4
Items:
Product: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - Download
Quantity: 1
Order Total: US$0.00
----
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure about copyright
> misuse (another defense against FSF's SCOish claims) -- seems to be
> pure US concept. Classic unenforceable unfair contract terms thing
> comes pretty close, but the FSF stubbornly claims that the [L]GPL is
> not a contract... so go figure, y'know. ;-)
Gack.
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace-12.pdf
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
Yeah, it is a real hoot. The basic question is just _when_ this will
get thrown out of court, not if. And of course, there is always the
odd chance that it actually takes a second court to do so.
Isaac
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> 17 USC 117 covers modifications required to run programs when one
> ones a copy. IMO that would include linking code to a library,
>
> I don't think so. Think of a "package" in source code - a tarball of
> linked (some modules reference others modules) components. What does
> it have to do with 17 USC 117 as far as preparation and distribution
> of that "package" is concerned? Nothing, I think.
>
Your not using your imagination. 17 USC 117 allows such copying or
adapting as is essential to run the software. IMO that would allow
compiling, installing, and linking to a library presuming that you
owned a legal copy of the source code of the library.
I really didn't suggest anything concerning distribution. I was
talking about doing what you can do own your own system with legally
acquired and owned copies of code.
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> Your not using your imagination. 17 USC 117 allows such copying or
> adapting as is essential to run the software. IMO that would allow
> compiling, installing, and linking to a library presuming that you
> owned a legal copy of the source code of the library.
My point is that linking is irrelevant (the copyright law, not GNU
copyleft silliness, doesn't establish exclusive right to link). As
for compiling, installing, and loading/executing, I agree (you
don't need any license for that thanks to 17 USC 117).
regards,
alexander.
Isaac
In the US at least, linking is not irrelevant because linking may create
RAM copies. 17 USC 117 was created in part because those RAM copies are
otherwise subject to the copyright holder's exclusive rights, and at least
one court had so ruled.
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> > My point is that linking is irrelevant (the copyright law, not GNU
> > copyleft silliness, doesn't establish exclusive right to link). As
> > for compiling, installing, and loading/executing, I agree (you
> > don't need any license for that thanks to 17 USC 117).
>
> In the US at least, linking is not irrelevant because linking may create
> RAM copies.
You mean RAM copying done by compiler and static linker (in
addition to loading at execution time)? That falls under
"compiling, installing" above. Essentially, it's the same
thing as copying the DLL or EXE into some (compressed) folder
on your disk.
Apart from that, do you seriously believe that you're violating
the law every time you defragment discs, scan for viruses, and
do other things like that all involving creation of RAM copies
of other digital stuff apart from computer programs (music,
pics, etc.) because it doesn't fall under 17 USC 117?
regards,
alexander.
Isaac
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> > My point is that linking is irrelevant (the copyright law, not GNU
>> > copyleft silliness, doesn't establish exclusive right to link). As
>> > for compiling, installing, and loading/executing, I agree (you
>> > don't need any license for that thanks to 17 USC 117).
>>
>> In the US at least, linking is not irrelevant because linking may create
>> RAM copies.
>
> You mean RAM copying done by compiler and static linker (in
> addition to loading at execution time)? That falls under
> "compiling, installing" above. Essentially, it's the same
> thing as copying the DLL or EXE into some (compressed) folder
> on your disk.
Yes I do mean exactly that.
> Apart from that, do you seriously believe that you're violating
> the law every time you defragment discs, scan for viruses, and
> do other things like that all involving creation of RAM copies
> of other digital stuff apart from computer programs (music,
> pics, etc.) because it doesn't fall under 17 USC 117?
I didn't say anything like that. There are exceptions other than
17 USC 117.
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
Isaac wrote: ...
How long do you think will it take Wallace to put the entire GPL'd
code base into quasi public domain (penalty for copyright misuse)?
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> Isaac wrote: ...
>
> How long do you think will it take Wallace to put the entire GPL'd
> code base into quasi public domain (penalty for copyright misuse)?
I would not dare to speculate how long it would take Lala-Terekhov
land, but since the GPL does not even fix a price (you can demand
whatever you want), it will be fun to see how this is supposed to get
off the ground. It would probably be easier to sue China because its
products lower the prices Wallace can achieve in the market.
The real question is not whether Wallace can prevail. The real
question is whether he can manage to get this case to trial before it
gets thrown out of court.
My personal guess is that he is aiming to have it thrown out of court
on a technicality, so that we'll have a chorus of idiots spreading the
news that the GPL is so shaky that only a technicality could avert its
impending doom, and that it is certain to fall next time around.
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace-12.pdf
compare it with sorta "prediction" by the fellow Vice President of
Corporate Affairs and General Counsel of MontaVista Software.
http://www.open-bar.org/docs/GPL-enforceability.pdf
"G. The GPL Violates U.S. Federal Antitrust Law
Ranking: 5
Rating: A good claim to make, even if it will not succeed"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
well, we'll see.
BTW, the fellow wrote (in "The GPL Fails as a Copyright License")
----
But what if the GPL is not, in fact, a contract? What if it is only
a license? It is difficult to imagine how a license could fail. A
license is, in essence, a person promising to give up the right to
prevent another from doing certain things. Non-exclusive licenses
like the GPL do not even need to be in writing. But what if, for some
reason, a court held the GPL to be an unenforceable license? In that
case, all arguments regarding contract validity (writing requirements
under the UCC, consideration, offer and acceptance) fall away, and
the licensee (who received the code) reverts back to her common law
rights. That means that she has the rights to use the program (i.e.,
to copy into memory as necessary to run it) and to make a backup copy.
What disappears are the restrictions and other limitations in the
GPL. But these will be the only rights a licensee has—she would have
no right to distribute, and no right to modify.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----
That's bullshit. It's permitted under 17 USC 109 (distribution)
and 17 USC 117 (private adaptation).
regards,
alexander.