GPL propaganda

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:[color=blue]
>
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>[color=green]
> > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
> > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright[/color]
>
> By definition, anything which grants _more_ options to you than copyright
> does cannot be the limiting mechanism you're arguing. The *most*[/color]

[url]http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf[/url]

LEGAL ISSUES IN OPEN SOURCE AND
FREE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION1
RAYMOND T. NIMMER

1 This materials have been adapted from Chapter 11 in Raymond T.
Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology (1997, 2005 Supp.).

-----
C. Viral impact: unrestricted vs. copyleft software

The idea of "copyleft" license provisions is a characteristic part of
at least a segment of the free software and open source software (FSOS)
community.89 Indeed, it is common in FSOS to view restrictive copyleft
provisions as the hallmark of truly "free" software, as the community
defines that term. From the perspective of nonbelievers, however,
copyleft is the most controversial feature of free software and open
source software because it affects the user's rights with respect to
the FSOS software and may impact the user's control of software written
entirely by it when used in conjunction with the FSOS software.

In a stunning example of double-speak, the Preamble to the GPL
describes the reason for such provisions in the GPL in terms of
protecting the licensee's rights:

To protect your rights,
-----

Nimmer continues:

-----
While proponents refer to such restrictions as creating "free" software,
protecting rights, persons affected or potentially affected by the terms
tend to refer to the risk of "viral" license terms that reach out to
infect their own, separately developed software and of improper market
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
leverage and misuse of copyright to control the works of other people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-----

He also notes:

-----
Beyond contract interpretation issues, the viral terms of licenses
present legal issues about enforceability. One basis for challenge
lies in the concept of misuse.98 This theory precludes enforcement of
intellectual property rights that have been misused by the rights
owner, including at least in some cases by attempting to leverage the
rights into control of products or work that falls outside the scope
of the licensor?s property interest. Clearly, the viral terms in an
FSOS license do this, but whether courts would hold that they are
justifiable by the nature of the context and the purpose behind the
license terms remains to be seen.
-----

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
>> > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright[/color]
>>
>> By definition, anything which grants _more_ options to you than copyright
>> does cannot be the limiting mechanism you're arguing. The *most*[/color]
>
> [url]http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf[/url]
>
> LEGAL ISSUES IN OPEN SOURCE AND
> FREE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION1
> RAYMOND T. NIMMER
>
> 1 This materials have been adapted from Chapter 11 in Raymond T.
> Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology (1997, 2005 Supp.).
>
> -----
> C. Viral impact: unrestricted vs. copyleft software
>
> The idea of "copyleft" license provisions is a characteristic part of
> at least a segment of the free software and open source software (FSOS)
> community.89 Indeed, it is common in FSOS to view restrictive copyleft
> provisions as the hallmark of truly "free" software, as the community
> defines that term. From the perspective of nonbelievers, however,
> copyleft is the most controversial feature of free software and open
> source software because it affects the user's rights with respect to
> the FSOS software and may impact the user's control of software written
> entirely by it when used in conjunction with the FSOS software[/color]

Bull****.
[color=blue]
>
> In a stunning example of double-speak, the Preamble to the GPL
> describes the reason for such provisions in the GPL in terms of
> protecting the licensee's rights:[/color]


It does. There's nothing "restrictive" about the GPL.
[color=blue]
> While proponents refer to such restrictions as creating "free" software,
> protecting rights, persons affected or potentially affected by the terms
> tend to refer to the risk of "viral" license terms that reach out to
> infect their own, separately developed software and of improper market
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> leverage and misuse of copyright to control the works of other people.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/color]

more bull**** from someone who doesn't understand the gpl.
**** off "Alex"
Try reading the GPL and understanding its implications before commenting
again.
[color=blue]
> Beyond contract interpretation issues,[/color]

It's not a contract, it's a license.

[color=blue]
> the viral terms of licenses[/color]

Name one.
--
| [email]spike1@freenet.co.uk[/email] | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell
<spike1@ponder.sky.com>
wrote
on Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:08:02 +0100
<2igvr5-odd.ln1@ponder.sky.com>:[color=blue]
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>
>>> > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
>>> > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright
>>>
>>> By definition, anything which grants _more_ options to you than copyright
>>> does cannot be the limiting mechanism you're arguing. The *most*[/color]
>>
>> [url]http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf[/url]
>>
>> LEGAL ISSUES IN OPEN SOURCE AND
>> FREE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION1
>> RAYMOND T. NIMMER
>>
>> 1 This materials have been adapted from Chapter 11 in Raymond T.
>> Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology (1997, 2005 Supp.).
>>
>> -----
>> C. Viral impact: unrestricted vs. copyleft software
>>
>> The idea of "copyleft" license provisions is a characteristic part of
>> at least a segment of the free software and open source software (FSOS)
>> community.89 Indeed, it is common in FSOS to view restrictive copyleft
>> provisions as the hallmark of truly "free" software, as the community
>> defines that term. From the perspective of nonbelievers, however,
>> copyleft is the most controversial feature of free software and open
>> source software because it affects the user's rights with respect to
>> the FSOS software and may impact the user's control of software written
>> entirely by it when used in conjunction with the FSOS software[/color]
>
> Bull****.[/color]

Badly worded, to be sure.

[1] How does a "copyleft" write software in the last sentence?
[2] The first sentence ("The idea of ... is ... community")
is overly verbose, and has the wrong verb (idea = community?).

It might be better rewritten:

"Copyleft" license provisions are cherished by a
part of the free software and open source software
(FSOS) community.

[3] The term "restrictive" is first introduced in sentence 2, and
probably should also be introduced in sentence 1, along with
a connector or two of some sort:

Highly restrictive "copyleft" licensing provisions
are cherished by a part of the so-called free
software and open source software (FSOS) community.

This at least makes the paragraph -- and the bias --
more obvious. The rewrite doesn't make the paragraph
true, of course.

[4] The last sentence is also overly verbose; it might be
rewritten:

However, "Copyleft" is the most controversial
feature of FSOS to nonbelievers, because
"copyleft" affects the user's rights with respect
to FSOS and may impact the user's control
of derivative or generated software.

though at this point I'm not exactly sure
where this idea is going. (It is possible
for software to generate software; the easiest
example is yacc or bison, which generates code from
language specifications. Of course one can quibble
endlessly here; the microprocessor, after all, reads
instructions, which makes them data; and many pieces
of data, even purely numeric ones, must be interpreted
in the context of the user's learning, which might
make them instructions.)
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>> In a stunning example of double-speak, the Preamble to the GPL
>> describes the reason for such provisions in the GPL in terms of
>> protecting the licensee's rights:[/color]
>
>
> It does. There's nothing "restrictive" about the GPL.[/color]

There are some mild restrictions designed presumably to
ensure that software, once under the GPL, remains under
the GPL, and modifications to the software are GPL as well,
if they are integral to the software (adding modules to
a piece of GPL software that are non-essential leads one
into interesting territory, as does a merge of two software
packages, or a total rewrite).

In an ideal world, we'd simply say "he wrote this part, she
wrote that part" and that would be all that's needed. I
for one think that the GPL strives for that ideal, but the
real world has issues precluding such a naive solution.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> While proponents refer to such restrictions as creating "free" software,
>> protecting rights, persons affected or potentially affected by the terms
>> tend to refer to the risk of "viral" license terms that reach out to
>> infect their own, separately developed software and of improper market
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> leverage and misuse of copyright to control the works of other people.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/color]
>
> more bull**** from someone who doesn't understand the gpl.
> **** off "Alex"
> Try reading the GPL and understanding its implications before commenting
> again.
>[color=green]
>> Beyond contract interpretation issues,[/color]
>
> It's not a contract, it's a license.[/color]

A license is an implied contract, though I'm not that familiar
with contract law; the general contract is that, should a user
want to use software or media, that he does so within the
strictures defined in the EULA.

(This is assumed the EULA has any legal validity at all,
of course. I'd have to dig deep into case law to see what
the courts think.)

The GPLv2 in particular has paragraph 5:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since
you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants
you permission to modify or distribute the Program
or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited
by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore,
by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of
this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions
for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or
works based on it.

In GPLv3 paragraph 9 implements this general concept;
the verbiage has been tightened and changed somewhat to
"propagate" a covered work rather than distributing a
Program or derivative works.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> the viral terms of licenses[/color]
>
> Name one.[/color]

In GPLv2, one very fanciful interpretation might have the
phrase "derivative work" basically encapsulate anything
using the libreadline library (which is under GPL; it's a
nice little library for handling history and line editing,
AIUI, and used in bash, among other places) as a derivative
work (since it uses the library) and therefore under
the GPL. That and similar considerations might make the
GPL "viral". (It is far from clear that such "virality"
is in itself a bad thing; software and digital media are
unique in that they are so readily and cheaply duplicable,
unlike, say, a banana, can of corn, microprocessor, or
automotive fuel pump.)

The term "derivative" has been entirely removed in GPLv3,
though one still might have issues regarding "covered work",
which is either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program. The term "covered work" is extensively used
in the text.

[url]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[/url]
[url]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html[/url]

(Disclaimer: I'm not part of GNU and am not a lawyer.)

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
** Posted from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url] **

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
[...][color=blue][color=green]
> > Beyond contract interpretation issues,[/color]
>
> It's not a contract, it's a license.[/color]

The U.S. Supreme Court:

------
Whether this [act of authorization] constitutes a gratuitous license,
or one for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner." De Forest Radio Tel. &
Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927)
------

[url]http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/236.pdf[/url]

------
The Artistic License permits reproduction, modification, and
distribution provided that the user meet the terms of the license. Id.
Ex H. GPL has similar requirements, but also requires that software
which incorporates GPL-licensed code to be free and distributed under
GPL. Id. Ex I. Both licenses use the phrase “provided that”. The Federal
Circuit held this language indicates a condition restricting the scope
of the license. Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2008). The Court implicitly held that these licenses bind a user through
a bilateral implied-in-fact contract. See id.
------

It seems that very few people understand what a "scope of use"
restricion in a copyright license really means. An excellent
illustration of what a "scope of use" restriction entails was implicitly
stated in I.A.E., INC. v. SHAVER, 74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1996):

[fn 7] "A 'license' was described by Judge Swan of the Second Circuit
more than a half-century ago in these terms: "In its simplest form, a
license means only leave to do a thing which the licensor would
otherwise have a right to prevent." Western Elec. Co. v. Pacent
Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 873
(1930)."

The operative phrase is "[a] thing which the licensor would otherwise
have a right to prevent." In the case of copyright infringement, the
"thing" must violate one of the rights enumerated in 17 USC 106.

For example, in the JMRI case does an original author have a 17 USC 106
right to *prevent* an attribution of copyright? Absolutely not!

Conditions precedent effect the "coming into existence" of a copyright
grant but it doesn't describe the purpose for which that grant is to be
*used*.

That's why Judge White in the Jacobsen case stated:

"Plaintiff's Claim Sounds in Contract, Not Copyright ... The condition
that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit
the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged violation of the
conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the
nonexclusive license [contract], but does not create liability for
copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist."

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> [...][color=green]
>> The GPLv2 in particular has paragraph 5:
>>
>> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since
>> you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants
>> you permission to modify or distribute the Program
>> or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited
>> by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore,
>> by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
>> based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of
>> this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions
>> for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or
>> works based on it.[/color]
>
> [url]http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf[/url]
>
> -----
> Even more explicitly, GPL § 5 states:
>
> You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
> it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
> if you do not accept this license. Therefore, by modifying or
> distributing the Program ? you indicate your acceptance of this License
> to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or
> modifying the Program or works based on it.63[/color]

Nothing wrong with that.
GPL is a permissive license. You don't need to accept the GPL to use the
program, only when you choose to use the source code or modify and
distribute are you bound by it.

Try distributing something that ISN'T open source sometime and see how long
it is before they sue you for copyright infringement.

[color=blue]
> This language, which is of a type used in contractual arrangements such
> as in commercial shrinkwrap licenses, clearly contemplates creation of a
> contractual relationship.64 ?Acceptance? of a license is not relevant to
> a non-contractual restriction. The restriction simply exists.[/color]

If you choose not to abide by it, you do not have permission to distribute.
What is so hard for you to understand about that?
Nothing in the license limits how you USE the program.
(unlike certain EULAs we could care to mention)
[color=blue]
> If the
> model followed by the GPL were non-contractual in nature, the language
> referring to ?acceptance? would not be used. Instead, the copyright
> owner might simply state: ?You may copy, modify, and distribute this
> software, but only in compliance with the following conditions.? Instead
> language of ?acceptance? is present. This suggests a document that
> contemplates creating a contractual relationship if accepted by the
> other party.[/color]

Biiiiig deal.

*snip the rest of "alex"'s crap.
--
| [email]spike1@freenet.co.uk[/email] | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:11:07 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[color=blue]
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
>> > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright[/color]
>>
>> By definition, anything which grants _more_ options to you than
>> copyright does cannot be the limiting mechanism you're arguing. The
>> *most*[/color]
>
> [url]http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf[/url][/color]

Oops, here he is again.

Okay, skippy, try to understand this: nobody is forcing you to use GPLed
code. Since you obviously don't like it, go write your own.

Problem solved. Why, exactly, are you still whining about this?