On 04/26/2010 11:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the > software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE") the software and nothing else. In case of GCC, you have the explicit permission to relicense the work under a later version of the GPL. In the case of the GNU Lesser GPL, you have explicit permission to relicense the work under the GPL. So depending on the license, you might have permission to relicense the work.
I think the ability to re-license in the sense of changing the license to a different license (as allowed) is a significant freedom offered by the GPL. It's a significant enough freedom that Linus chose to deny it for Linux as he apparently felt it provided the wrong sort of freedom, at least at the time he made that call.
However, that isn't only/quite what I meant. My understanding of copyright law is that it *only* protects distribution rights of the works. For example, as long as I use the software internally within a single legal entity (company, house hold, or whatever is acceptable to the courts), I do not need to abide by *any* of the rules listed in the license, as I am not re-distributing the works. Most licenses, specifically including the GPL, specify rules that define what requirements I must meet before I am allowed to re-distribute the works. If re-distribute these works according to requirements, and then somebody down stream from me obtains a copy through me and then violates their licensing agreement in such a that I can demonstrate loss to a judge. I think I can sue. Or, rather, I don't see why I wouldn't be able to sue. I am required to include the license in the copy I distribute. They accepted the license as I provided. They violated the license. I can demonstrate losses as a result. How is this not a valid law suit? Why do I have to "own" the software to have a case? I think I just have to prove that a violation exists that I was the victim which resulted in a direct loss to me. I don't know where this "own" requirement comes from. But then, as I said in the thread two back that both of you are responding to - I am not a lawyer, and maybe the FSF knows something I do not. I think I've seen cases where users of software have leaned on companies to produce software under threat of a law suit, without necessarily involving each and every owner of the software. The WRT54G situation leaps right up to the top for me. I think the "must legally own the works to be listed as a victim with losses in a law suit" is not a true requirement. I think it might be convenient and might improve the chance of success - but I don't think that one requires access and commitment from the owners in order to create a law suit.
As somebody else pointed out, the freedoms of the GPL are designed for the users. The people who are the most likely to be the victims are the users. The authors gave the software away for free, so attempting to demonstrate losses on something you give away for free is almost laughable (I'm sure many here would not laugh). It is the *users* who should be able to create the law suit, because it is the *users* who are impacted, and it is the *users* who can put a $$$ figure on their losses. In the Objective C case, users can claim that without the Objective C code being contributed back, it would take X million man hours @ $N/hour to re-create the code for use in future projects. This is a loss which can be accurately demonstrated. Sue NeXT for X*N+penalties. They have the option of paying out the full amount, funding the free software community to create their own (hopefully better) Objective C implementation, settling for a smaller amount (if agreeable to the users), or releasing their software.
So again, I think copyright assignment is a matter of convenience and optimization - and not a legal requirement. But then, what do I really know...
Cheers, mark
