GPL flaw?
I have a small quibble with the GPL on a point that seems that it could be improved, unless, of course, my interpreation is incorrect. The existing license seems to produce undesireable behavior in a particular (admittedly, unusual) case. Let us suppose that a company (Small Company) produces a software package (Smart Writer). Small Company sells their software for years under a closed-source license. Small Company hears about the value that GPL-licensing their software provides, and decides to GPL (v2)-license their software. Small Company produces several releases of their Smart Writer. They do not use any code contributions from the community. Smart Writer is a very good package, and large chunks of code from it are used in a stunning array of GPLed packages. RMS himself includes ten thousand lines of code from Smart Writer in core code in his new package (Fast Lisp Interpreter), interweaving it throughout Fast List Interpreter's codebase. Small Company is then purchased by a much, much larger company (Macrosoft, Inc). This includes "all current intellectual property assets". Macrosoft wishes to prevent others from using its new IP freely in GPLed software. It goes back, and discovers that one of Small Company's developers included (in a version of Smart Writer predating GPL release) twenty lines of code from a software package that Small Company did not have a license to, and is not available under a GPL-compatible license. Nobody in the GPL community has used these twenty lines of code in their software. Normally, this is not a problem -- a company may remove offending code and do a re-release. However, Small Company no longer controls Smart Writer. Macrosoft is in charge. Macrosoft asserts that because Small Company did not have ownership of the full Smart Writer codebase, Clause 7 of the GPL applies (prohibiting distribution under the GPL unless such distribution may be done legally) to all releases of Smart Writer that Small Company attempted to perform. Macrosoft thus claims that the Smart Writer releases were never legally released under the GPL. RMS asks Macrosoft to re-release a Smart Writer release with the offending twenty lines of code removed. Macrosoft refuses, and says that the GPL-using community must instead remove all instances of Smart Writer code from all GPL software, or it will sue for copyright infringement. In the meantime, the GPL-using community must cease distribution of all software using Smart Writer code. Even more disturbing, let us assume that RMS passes away from computer monitor radition before he can finish excising the ten thousand lines of Smart Writer code from his Fast Lisp Interpreter package. Since he owns the Fast List Interpreter copyright, and has never done a legal release of Fast List Interpreter, this package has never been GPLed. His heirs refuse to GPL-license the Fast List Interpreter package. Thus, Fast Lisp Interpreter is not GPLed. In the GPL v2, clause 6 states: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Perhaps clause 6 should specifically state that license(s) are granted to all portions of a Program released under the GPL. This would mean that even if the case of the GPL license applying to the Program being shown to be invalid, any GPLable portion of the Program is still available to anyone using source from that Program. This way, if someone in the GPL community had used the twenty offending lines, they would have to remove...those twenty lines. The remainder of the codebase would still be GPLed. Thoughts? Perhaps I've misinterpreted the GPL, or missed some portion of a clause that applies. It would be nice to know that this isn't an issue. :-) -- Best of luck, Mark Schreiber pgpOBmc6l8O4L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL flaw?
Mark Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have a small quibble with the GPL on a point that seems that it > could be improved, unless, of course, my interpreation is incorrect. > The existing license seems to produce undesireable behavior in a > particular (admittedly, unusual) case. You are horribly confused. I think you meant to send this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] However... > Let us suppose that a company (Small Company) produces a software > package (Smart Writer). Small Company sells their software for years > under a closed-source license. Small Company hears about the value > that GPL-licensing their software provides, and decides to GPL > (v2)-license their software. Small Company produces several releases > of their Smart Writer. They do not use any code contributions from > the community. Keep an eye on that last sentence: if they used no code contributions from outside, the problem you mention below seems unlikely. However... > Smart Writer is a very good package, and large chunks of code from it > are used in a stunning array of GPLed packages. RMS himself includes > ten thousand lines of code from Smart Writer in core code in his new > package (Fast Lisp Interpreter), interweaving it throughout Fast List > Interpreter's codebase. > > Small Company is then purchased by a much, much larger company > (Macrosoft, Inc). This includes "all current intellectual property > assets". Macrosoft wishes to prevent others from using its new IP > freely in GPLed software. It goes back, and discovers that one of > Small Company's developers included (in a version of Smart Writer > predating GPL release) twenty lines of code from a software package > that Small Company did not have a license to, and is not available > under a GPL-compatible license. Nobody in the GPL community has used > these twenty lines of code in their software. It's questionable whether anybody can copyright twenty lines of typical code. Sure, there are 20-line snippets that have creative work, but that does seem a bit unlikely in a tens-of-thousands-of-lines work. However... > Normally, this is not a problem -- a company may remove offending code > and do a re-release. However, Small Company no longer controls Smart > Writer. Macrosoft is in charge. You are confused about several points. Here's the first one: Small Company gave a license to use its copyrighted works to those who received copies of Smart Writer (GPL Edition). If it couldn't have granted a license to use part of that package, that's fine: the license to the rest persists. So RMS and the users and distributors of FLI are not affected by this. > Macrosoft asserts that because Small Company did not have ownership of > the full Smart Writer codebase, Clause 7 of the GPL applies > (prohibiting distribution under the GPL unless such distribution may > be done legally) to all releases of Smart Writer that Small Company > attempted to perform. Macrosoft thus claims that the Smart Writer > releases were never legally released under the GPL. Macrosoft needs better lawyers: clause 7 does not apply to Small Company, because they are the original authors. They don't *need* a license to distribute or modify Smart Writer, because they hold the copyright. > RMS asks Macrosoft to re-release a Smart Writer release with the > offending twenty lines of code removed. Macrosoft refuses, and says > that the GPL-using community must instead remove all instances of > Smart Writer code from all GPL software, or it will sue for copyright > infringement. In the meantime, the GPL-using community must cease > distribution of all software using Smart Writer code. This sounds a lot like SCO's recent nonsense; perhaps they confused you. Either way, this scenario is not plausible. > Even more disturbing, let us assume that RMS passes away from computer > monitor radition before he can finish excising the ten thousand lines > of Smart Writer code from his Fast Lisp Interpreter package. Since he > owns the Fast List Interpreter copyright, and has never done a legal > release of Fast List Interpreter, this package has never been GPLed. > His heirs refuse to GPL-license the Fast List Interpreter package. > Thus, Fast Lisp Interpreter is not GPLed. Not quite: RMS had a license from Small Company to modify and distribute all the code he used for FLI, so it's available to anyone who has a copy under the GPL. > In the GPL v2, clause 6 states: > > "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions." > > Perhaps clause 6 should specifically state that license(s) are granted > to all portions of a Program released under the GPL. This would mean > that even if the case of the GPL license applying to the Program being > shown to be invalid, any GPLable portion of the Program is still > available to
Re: GPL flaw?
Mark Schreiber said on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:15:33PM -0500,: Hmm ... You sound a lot like the clueless lawyers for SCO. > His heirs refuse to GPL-license the Fast List Interpreter package. > Thus, Fast Lisp Interpreter is not GPLed. Not a problem. If RMS released it under the GPL license. Anybody who received FLI from RMS has a perpetual right under the GPL. OTOH, if RMS never releast FLI during his life time, what exactly is the loss to the community?? > Perhaps clause 6 should specifically state that license(s) are > granted to all portions of a Program released under the GPL. This > would mean Well, this will not help you in this case where the claim is that because portion X which did not belong to us was released by us, though the entire was under the GPL, now, we revoke your license to the whole. (That is what the SCO is saying, is it not??) Well, in law, if *you* gave me the whole, which contained parts which did not belong to you, (or you did not have rights to give that to me), *you* should (1) compensate me for whatever loss I suffer (2) If the tainted part is 'severable' from the whole, I can continue, at MY option, to use the remaining. (1) is not likely to be enforced where the transfer is for gratis, except in very rare circumstances. Both (1) and (2) are *not* parts of the law of copyright; rather, they derive from other branches of law, like contracts. > Perhaps I've misinterpreted the GPL, Yes. And as SCO v. IBM shows, you are not the only one to do that. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~+
Re: GPL flaw?
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Mark Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Normally, this is not a problem -- a company may remove offending >> code and do a re-release. However, Small Company no longer controls >> Smart Writer. Macrosoft is in charge. > > You are confused about several points. Here's the first one: Small > Company gave a license to use its copyrighted works to those who > received copies of Smart Writer (GPL Edition). If it couldn't have > granted a license to use part of that package, that's fine: the > license to the rest persists. So RMS and the users and distributors > of FLI are not affected by this. Estoppel even further restricts the ability of Macrosoft to prevail against individuals who were using Smart Writer code. [I would imagine that this would lead to the GPL being applied "in effect" to all of the code it could possibly be applied to. Unfortunatly (or fortunatly?) there is no case law that I am aware of applying to this issue.] Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Adding copyright holders to an MIT-like license
I was packaging elk for Debian, and also became new upstream because it was unmaintained. I wonder what I should do with the license (atta- ched to this message, even if not really necessary). It is an MIT-like license, and there is no real permission to modify it, but if I am a new copyright co-holder I should be allowed to add my name to it, right? Also the license says "Oliver Laumann (me)". I'd like to remove the "(me)" part since it's no longer really "him". Is that minor change allowed? Regards, -- Sam. $Id: COPYING 220 2003-09-28 12:49:25Z sam $ Copyright 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, Oliver Laumann, Berlin (except for the contents of the directory `doc/usenix'). Copyright 2002, 2003 Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paris This software was derived from Elk 1.2, which was Copyright 1987, 1988, 1989, Nixdorf Computer AG and TELES GmbH, Berlin (Elk 1.2 has been written by Oliver Laumann (me) for TELES Telematic Services, Berlin, in a joint project between TELES and Nixdorf Microprocessor Engineering, Berlin). Oliver Laumann, TELES GmbH, and Nixdorf Computer AG, as co-owners or individual owners of copyright in this software, grant to any person or company a worldwide, royalty free, license to i) copy this software, ii) prepare derivative works based on this software, iii) distribute copies of this software or derivative works, iv) perform this software, or v) display this software, provided that this notice is not removed and that neither Oliver Laumann nor Teles nor Nixdorf are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of this software. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.
please remove
Please remove this page http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00496.html
Re: please remove
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003, at 22:08 -0500, Azhar Abdul-Quader wrote: > Please remove this page > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg004 > 96.html I'd say you are out of luck. You *might* be able to talk to the mailing-list managers, but I doubt they would really care. And debian-legal can't do anything about the list archive. In the future, just make sure you know where you are sending stuff. (cc'd, and posted.) -- scott c. linnenbringer| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.panix.com/~sl | [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpsEDCL4cd0g.pgp Description: PGP signature
