Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > @ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : > > >Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : > >> > >> >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that > >> >one had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it > >> >offers, because it's a contract, and that it had to be a > >> >contract, because one had to accept it to receive certain > >> >benefits. > >> > > >> >I don't think either of those is true, and this is a good > >> >example of why I think that. Calling it a nitpick doesn't make > >> >it less of a counterexample to your claims. > >> > > >> > >>Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every* > >>software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the > >>dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law > >>(9.609/98), to Contract Law and the Civil Code. > > > > > >So something as simple as the MIT/X11 license -- "I grant to you a > >license to make derivative works of this work, and to trade in them > >and it without restriction" is a contract? Gosh. How can I > >enforce it against you? > > > If you (p.ex.) rip my (C) notices, which would be a violation of the > license, I can go to Civil Court (in the case, prolly small claims > civil court) and a Judge will make you put them back or else you go > to jail.
That's a violation of the license? But there isn't anything in what I wrote about copyright notices! Are you sure the judge is sending me to jail for breach of contract and not for copyright infringement? > >If I issue a license as my example above, but appending "provided > >you wear yellow underpants," and then discover that you have > >distributed copies of the software without wearing yellow > >underpants, can I enforce the contract against you and obtain > >damages or your performance of the underpants-wearing? Or do I go > >after you for infringing my copyright? > > > Both. If I go to Civil Court and the "wearing yellow underpants" > clause is deemed legal by it, the judge will order you to wear > yellow underpants; next time I catch you making copies while in your > tiger underpants, I denounce you to the same judge and you'll go to > jail by our equivalent of "contempt" (it's called "disobedience"). > > *And* I go to Criminal Court and denounce you for copyright > infringement, and now we're talking *real* jail time and hefty fines That's criminal in Brasil? Not a tort? Wacky. So you don't get any damages from me infringing your copyrights? > (real in terms of BR law -- down here the max jail time EVER is 30 > years: yeah, no 50, no life, and definitively no death penalty, its > forbidden by our Constitution). If you ever see a license which suggests the death penalty, I do hope you'll consider it non-free. > All supposing the "wear yp" clause is legal (which prolly is NOT). How come? In the US, I could certainly sign a contract agreeing to wear yellow underpants in exchange for a license to copy and modify various works. I suspect that this hints at the difference between the Brazilian legal term you're translating as "contract" and what I'm talking about. Here, I send you this shell script I have written, which highlights 3com devices: 'cat /proc/pci | tr 3 \*'. I grant you a license to use, modify, and distribute it, and to distribute any derived works you make -- HOWEVER, I demand you send me a dollar for this. Now, are you obligated to send me a dollar? If not, why not. You *have* the license. I granted it to you. How can I enforce our contract? If I can't, how is that different from if I said that I grant you the license unconditionally? > >>So, here, basically it's legally binding a license "contract" that > >>says you can only *use* the program or the data generated by it if > >>you are wearing yellow underpants (not really, but almost). > >> > >> >And I'll continue to argue that a license granted only by > >> >contract is non-free. To the extent that applies to the MPL, > >> >it's certainly relevant. > >> > > >> > >>IRT jurisdicions like ours where, every license is only granted by > >>contract, where do you stand? > > > > > >It may not be possible to have free software in such jurisdictions. > >I don't understand their laws well enough to say that it's > >impossible -- indeed, the other messages you've sent about a > >universal right to make any copies necessary for operation imply > >it's not possible to have *unfree* software there. > > > > Any copies necessary for _the_ _operations_ _you're_ _licensed_ _to_ > _do_! This means you're infringing in my copyright if I put a clause > "you may not click the File/Save menu entry" and you do so. Do you really mean that copyright can restrict reading a book? That is, I could sell you a book, but not give you a license to read it? Or sell you a program, but not give you a license to run it? Then I'm even less convinced that you can have free software under those laws. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
