gjc@mitech.com (02/07/91)
Rms says: Is there a trend in Motif vs. Open Look? Just kidding, but I've been waiting for days for a message that would combine the two most common flame-lines on this list. All kidding aside, a point of information here, only the COPYRIGHT HOLDER has valid legal standing to sue over copyright violations. IMHO: Therefore commercial hardware and software vendors and especially software consultants will find the GNU copyright/license to be less of a problem than the many software packages found with copyright messages of the form "Free for everything but commercial use." The "Free for everything but commercial use" thing can be a real trap. What if a company hires a consultant to help them *obtain* and modify such software? Is that commercial use? It could very well be. But a consultant who works with FSF software, and the hardware or software company that provides such software to their customers does not run into such a problem. The "Free for everything but commercial use" copyright is like a new version of the AT&T "free" un*x license to universities of years ago, or the old Gosling Emacs license situation. If the software catches on, proves to be popular, or shows any sign of being of commercial value, then watch out! Obviously the MIT X-Window style copyright is the ideal. But I will take the FSF one over the "No commercial Use" kind in all cases. Does anybody disagree with that? -gjc
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (02/09/91)
In article <8536@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com writes: >Obviously the MIT X-Window style copyright is the ideal. But I will take >the FSF one over the "No commercial Use" kind in all cases. But the X-Windows system style copyright isn't ideal for everyone -- what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a fixed binary. Oh yeah, that's ideal.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/10/91)
Copyrights cannot control Use. Only a license can do that. Any freeware or shareware that says "Not for commercial use.", "May not be used for profit.", or "May not be used by a business or institution if not licensed." is lying. There's plenty of court precedent that a copyright is not a license. And copyright law clearly does not cover use. Sean -- ** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu>
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (02/10/91)
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >But the X-Windows system style copyright isn't ideal for everyone -- >what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code >fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a >fixed binary. And then he has to call up MIT and buy a tape, or he has to FTP the sources, or he has to uucp them. There are numerous ways to get X source in small periods of time. Most of those who don't know the first time they try, figure it out by the next time. Finally, if MIT had used the GNU Public Virus for X, we'd all be speaking PostScript to our windows. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
murthy@algron.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) (02/10/91)
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >>But the X-Windows system style copyright isn't ideal for everyone -- >>what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >>no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code >>fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a >>fixed binary. >And then he has to call up MIT and buy a tape, or he has to FTP the >sources, or he has to uucp them. There are numerous ways to get X >source in small periods of time. Most of those who don't know the >first time they try, figure it out by the next time. But if he runs some slightly different hardware from that supported by MIT, he's S.O.L., eh? --chet--
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (02/10/91)
In article <Feb.9.13.28.06.1991.11859@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > >>But the X-Windows system style copyright isn't ideal for everyone -- >>what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >>no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code >>fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a >>fixed binary. > >And then he has to call up MIT and buy a tape, or he has to FTP the >sources, or he has to uucp them. There are numerous ways to get X >source in small periods of time. Which doesn't do the user much good since the vendor has made changes to get X to run on the vendor's box. With the Gnu License, I get access to all the source so I can fix it in 5 minutes. Without it, I may or may not get stuck for 6 months, depending on the vendor's support policy. Clearly "no commercial use allowed" is a bad license. But I disagree that it's *obvious* that the X license is better than the Gnu License, which is what the original poster was claiming. There are always tradeoffs -- vendors may not spend as much money doing machine-independent optimizations to X if they had to give them away. But I may or may not prefer that. And that's what I was saying.
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) (02/11/91)
>>>what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >>>no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code >>>fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a >>>fixed binary. > >>And then he has to call up MIT and buy a tape, ... > >But if he runs some slightly different hardware from that supported by >MIT, he's S.O.L., eh? Actually, this is very unlikely. The X windows system is largely hardware independendent, except for the X server itself. It is unlikely that anyone on the net will provide a source-code fix for an X server whose source has never been distributed. In the meantime, if there are fixes to the numerous libraries and applications which come with X, the MIT X11 sources should be sufficient. john nelson uucp: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn domain: jpn@genrad.com
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (02/12/91)
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes: > Actually, this is very unlikely. The X windows system is largely > hardware independendent, except for the X server itself. It is > unlikely that anyone on the net will provide a source-code fix for > an X server whose source has never been distributed. THat's the point, isn't it? If the person's X server has bugs, they're out of luck. > In the meantime, if there are fixes to the numerous libraries and > applications which come with X, the MIT X11 sources should be > sufficient. What if it's a fix to the library, but the vendor includes programs that link in the library but don't come on the X tapes? Decwindows apps like dxterm come to mind. The person now has a fixed library, but can't do a thing to help the programs from the vendor for which source is unavailable. This is *exactly* the circumstance that the gnu LGPL would help to avoid. The vendors don't have to give up their own source code, but users can change and fix the public parts of the program and the vendors' programs will reflect the changes. -- Doug DeJulio dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (ATK/AMS) ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (NeXT)
craig@attcan.UUCP (Craig Campbell) (02/13/91)
In article <sean.666119748@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >Copyrights cannot control Use. Only a license can do that. Any >freeware or shareware that says "Not for commercial use.", "May not be >used for profit.", or "May not be used by a business or institution if >not licensed." is lying. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of even the most twisted imagination, BUT, I beleive that I have the right to control who uses MY software. If it is copyrighted, with all rights reserved (As all my software is), then I have maintained control. (One need not register software to have it copyrighted, one only needs to declare (in the software and at run time) that it is.) Should a company or person use my software for gain, then legally I AM ENTITLED to my share of that gain, unless I have relinquished my rights. If someone is making money as a result of my labours, then legally I am entitled to compensation. >There's plenty of court precedent that a >copyright is not a license. And copyright law clearly does not cover >use. True. A copyright protects your material and IDEAS from being copied. Obviously, if an unauthorised party has a copy of a copywritten article, then the copyright law has been broken. Should you then be able to demonstrate that you have been damaged by this infringement (i.e. The transgessing party made $$$ by using my software. $$$ which I could/should have been a partner in obtaining. (Remember, I helped bring in those $$$ with my software, even if I was unaware of doing so.) So, it would follow that I should be awarded my rightful share of the $$$ so long as my software is being used. Also, there are most likely fines and penalties associated with breaking the copyright in the first place, regardless of whether any $$$ were made or not. Remember, the violator has basically stolen my (intellectual) property. Courts tend to take a dim view of theft. Ignoring copyrights and limits placed on software by its creator is a risky and foolish thing to do. I would strongly recommend that one try to work within the limits of the law, and not try to slip around it. I suspect that most developers of software would gladly make deals with profit oriented bodies for the use of their software. (Software cats tend to be a friendly lot. Especially if you offer a saucer of warm milk! :-)) >** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu> Stay legal, craig
kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) (02/14/91)
In article <13665@vpk3.UUCP> craig@vpk3.ATT.COM (Craig Campbell) writes: >A copyright protects your material and IDEAS from being copied. >Obviously, if an unauthorised party has a copy of a copywritten article, >then the copyright law has been broken. > A copyright protects your "written expression" of your IDEAS, and not the IDEAS themselves. You cannot protect your ideas from being used by others via a copyright. The law is very clear on this. As applied to software, the copyright law prevents someone from making copies of your software and distributing those copies to others. However, it does NOT in any way give the author control over how the purchaser of the software uses the purchased copy of the software. Nor does it give the author legal rights to compensation if the purchaser of the software uses it to make money, even large amounts of money. And if the software purchaser likes the program and decides to write his/her own better version of the program, he/she is free to do so without giving you ANY compensation, privided that the new program is a different expression of the same idea found in your program, which is very easy to do. Remember, to violate the terms of the copyright law, one has to copy the "expression" of an idea, not the idea, itself! For example, suppose you write a fortune telling software program that you sell in retail stores for $149. Suppose you have copyrighted it. Then, John Fortune comes along and buys a copy. He is impressed and convinces ABC to let him create a TV fortune telling program in which people call in live to get their fortunes told. The program uses an IBM PC and your software to generate the fortunes for each caller. You might think that John Fortune and ABC owe you compensation for using your program to make money. However, the copyright on your software gives you no such rights to compensation. John Fortune and ABC can use your program without owing you a dime! On the other hand, if you made all purchasers of your fortune telling software sign a license BEFORE you sold them the software, then compensation terms written into the license could be enforced. But it is not the copyright law that allows this. Because it is a properly executed license, it is contract law that protects you, not copyright law. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications Corporation Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dutcher@seas.gwu.edu (Sylvia Dutcher) (02/14/91)
In article <13665@vpk3.UUCP> craig@vpk3.ATT.COM (Craig Campbell) writes: >I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of even the most twisted imagination, BUT, I am a lawyer, but advice you get for free is worth what you pay. Nevertheless, let's try to clear up some confusion: Copyright gives the author the right to prevent others from copying. It's as simple as that. A license may accompany a piece of software, but a license is just a contract. Since I can forbid others from copying, I can grant them a license to perform that forbidden activity without a penalty. >Should a company or person use my software for gain, then legally I AM >ENTITLED to my share of that gain, unless I have relinquished my rights. Of course, you mean if they COPY it for gain, not just USE it. >True. A copyright protects your material and IDEAS from being copied. Wrong. The federal copyright statute (17 U.S.C) protects only the expression of the ideas-- not the ideas themselves. This distinction is the basis for lots of confusion in this area (and missed by some courts)> As RMS clearly understands, given what he's written in this area, there is a large grey area about what restrictions one can impose through a copyright license. I find his copyleft scheme to be well thought out although anybody who knows the area would have doubts about whether it could really be enforced legally. But, moral pressure aside, I'm sure somebody will litigate it, and then we'll all know the answer.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb14.002058.2311@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: >He is impressed and convinces ABC to let him create >a TV fortune telling program in which people call in live to get their fortunes >told. The program uses an IBM PC and your software to generate the fortunes >for each caller. You might think that John Fortune and ABC owe you compensation >for using your program to make money. However, the copyright on your software >gives you no such rights to compensation. John Fortune and ABC can use your >program without owing you a dime! This is simply wrong. Copyrights protect public performance as well as copying and distribution, and buying a copy of some software doesn't give you the right to use it in public. I advise any John Fortunes out there to avoid Kevin's advice. ---Dan
oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (02/18/91)
In article <1991Feb9.000821.5554@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code >fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a >fixed binary. what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and no source? He goes and gets the X source from someone on the net. He finds a bug, someone provides a source-code fix, he applies it without having to wait for his irresponsible vendor to ship him a fixed binary. >Oh yeah, that's ideal. In this discussion, ``ideal'' is strictly relative to the amount of verbosity stuffed into one's strawman. [But you knew that already.] oz --- Where the stream runneth smoothest, | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca the water is deepest. - John Lyly | UUCP: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz
gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (02/20/91)
In article <21686@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes: >>what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >>no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code >>fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a >>fixed binary. > >what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and >no source? He goes and gets the X source from someone on the net. Did I say the source for this particular port is available? Tell me, is that generally true? No. The way the X copyright works, it doesn't have to be. So you can be screwed. If X were GPLed, then it would be. >In this discussion, ``ideal'' is strictly relative to the amount of >verbosity stuffed into one's strawman. [But you knew that already.] It helps if you understand the point I was attempting to make. I gave an example to contest the claim that "pure PD is always better than GPL". It's not.
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/21/91)
In article <1991Feb20.050945.5815@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Did I say the source for this particular port is available? Tell me, >is that generally true? No. The way the X copyright works, it doesn't >have to be. So you can be screwed. If X were GPLed, then it would be. What makes you think that if the source for a particular machine isn't available now, it would be if X were GPLed. More likely if X were GPLed it wouldn't be the standard windowing system for workstations, in which case most of us would care less whether or not we had source, because we wouldn't be using it. Either way some people will be happy and some will not, but you can't generalize your happiness to that of the rest of the world. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (02/22/91)
gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Did I say the source for this particular port is available? Tell me, >is that generally true? No. The way the X copyright works, it doesn't >have to be. So you can be screwed. If X were GPLed, then it would be. If X were ``GPLed'', we'd all be speaking PostScript. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb20.224743.6306@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: >What makes you think that if the source for a particular machine isn't >available now, it would be if X were GPLed. I don't. Please read what I write, and not what you want to argue against ;-)