davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/14/90)
This question came up in comp.unix.shells, but I think it is of more
general interest.
There is talk of a change to the GPL to require only making the source
of the FSF stuff available. If true, and it's only rumor as far as I
know, then which GPL applies to programs which say that they are
copyright under the conditions of the GPL? Note that there is no
confusion if a GPL was distributed with the program, that is the
operative license. But after talking to a lawyer(*), I think there is
some question as to which GPL applies, and that in general it is the one
in force when the software was released.
For this reason, if there *is* a change to the GPL, it would be
desirable to include a date, and for programs to mention the date in the
copyright notice. This would make it much easier to identify problem.
(*) I don't just consult lawyers at the drop of a rumor, I was having a
beer with one, and his specialty is patent, rather than copyright, law.
No one should make any decisions based on this, other than FSF, if they
are really changing their policy and want to help their software spread
by clarifying the conditions of use.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -megumby@Cygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) (10/14/90)
It's not a change to the GNU GPL, it's a different license: a library license. It's existance won't affect existing programs like, say, GNU Emacs.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/15/90)
In article <2058@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) asks the musical question: >Which GPL applies to programs which say that they are >copyright under the conditions of the GPL? The GPV addresses this question itself. Each version carries a version number; authors may specify which version of the GPV they wish to have apply to their code. If no selection is made, then the terms of any version may be used in redistributing the code. Unfortunately, according to another posting, it looks like the GPV itself won't be modified, but rather a new license created. This is a shame, since it doesn't disinfect the virus. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) (10/16/90)
From watmath.waterloo.edu:gnu/gcc-1.37.1/COPYING: > 7. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions > of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will > be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to > address new problems or concerns. > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program > specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any > later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions > either of that version or of any later version published by the Free > Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of > the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software > Foundation. This is the new "subroutinized" GPL, version 1 (February, 1989). Does that address your concerns? -- -Colin
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (10/16/90)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >In article <2058@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) asks the >musical question: >>Which GPL applies to programs which say that they are >>copyright under the conditions of the GPL? >The GPV addresses this question itself. Acutally a pundit could argue that NONE of them apply. Not only is the whole concept of a unilaterial "license" contract not signed or accepted by both parties subject to a great deal of legal challenge [1], I believe the Duck Defense would apply here. (Duck Defense - "If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, you can call it a chicken but it's still a duck") In this case, the giving away of the source and calling it "free" sure makes it look like a duck of the public domain variety to me, FSF's attempt to quibble about the definition of "free" aside. But hey, the debate serves to fill up all those empty bit slots in my Telebits. I think they'd get lonely if they didn't handle 50 mb/day :-) [1] If one wants to argue that one has "accepted" a license by virtue of opening the package or using the code in the case of GNU, then another can follow that same logic thread and say that the provider of the license "accepts" any unilateral changes I want to make to the contract before I "accept" it. If the provider argues that my signature is not necessary to validate my acceptance of the contract, I can argue that his signature is not necessary to validate HIS acceptance of MY changes. And remember that contract law provides that a contract will be construed AGAINST the side that wrote the contract. [Note to GNU zealots - To save rehashing the old arguments for the Nth (where N approaches infinity) time, I'll state that I support the general concept of FSF, that is that source should always be available and preferably free. What I reject is the concept that anyone can dictate what I do with MY code, a contract notwithstanding. To that end I consider the GPL to be interesting reading in the same vein as "Red Storm Rising" - realistic sounding but in reality fiction.] John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA**
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (10/18/90)
On 15 Oct 90 20:57:50 GMT, jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) said: jgd> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >In article <2058@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) asks the >musical question: >>Which GPL applies to programs which say that they are >>copyright under the conditions of the GPL? >The GPV addresses this question itself. jgd> Acutally a pundit could argue that NONE of them apply. Not only is the jgd> whole concept of a unilaterial "license" contract not signed or accepted jgd> by both parties subject to a great deal of legal challenge [1], I believe jgd> the Duck Defense would apply here. (Duck Defense - "If it quacks like a jgd> duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, you can call it a chicken jgd> but it's still a duck") Since it is called 'license' but it is really a conditional permission to copy, your argument is perfectly true. If something is called 'license' it does not mean it is contract. Indeed, it could be called the General Public Hymn, and this would not make it a hymn (well, I hope...). jgd> In this case, the giving away of the source and calling it "free" jgd> sure makes it look like a duck of the public domain variety to me, jgd> FSF's attempt to quibble about the definition of "free" aside. Be more careful. Do not invite people to violate a copyright by overstepping the permissions by the copyright holder by hinting that there is no copyright. Remember: in the absence of permission to copy, or an explicit written release to the public domain, all copies of a work of authorship are illegal. jgd> What I reject is the concept that anyone can dictate what I do with jgd> MY code, a contract notwithstanding. The GNU copyright permissions (they are no contract) state that you are allowed to use modify and copy in any way a legally derived copy of any relevant source; but you are only allowed to redistribute such copies to third parties if you do not impose on them more restrictive copying conditions than those with which you received your copy. Again: you can do what you want with your copy, you can also make zillions of copies, modified or not, for your own use. It is only *redistribution* that is subject to conditions. If you do not obey the conditions, you have no permission to make copies for redistribution, and you are violating the copyright of the holder. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (10/18/90)
In article <2058@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > This question came up in comp.unix.shells, but I think it is of more >general interest. > There is talk of a change to the GPL to require only making the source >of the FSF stuff available. > [ . . . . . . .] But after talking to a lawyer(*), I think there is >some question as to which GPL applies, and that in general it is the one >in force when the software was released. >(*) I don't just consult lawyers at the drop of a rumor, I was having a >beer with one, and his specialty is patent, rather than copyright, law. I do not really like the GNU Public License; also realize that they can, if they choose, offer a private license to selected parties with any terms whatsoever. I shy away from any source subject to the GPL unless I only want to compile and run it. The issue of what should and should not be in the GPL merits general discussion. The question should be how to maximally benefit society as a whole, or the users of the software in particular. The biggest problem I have with binary-only software is that a company can choose to withdraw support (or have bankruptcy make that choice for them). The GPL solves that problem. A less restrictive solution, namely to cause a vendor to archive the source for release when the vendor stops supporting it would also be acceptable. The current Copyright law permits a vendor to submit only a portion of the source code as a fingerprint of sorts, and this is a big problem. The GPL is a response to another problem as well. We are practically in a global village, running the same software on a wide variety of platforms. The developers of the operating system, in an effort to maximize their own return, both charge outrageous prices for the software and restrict access to the source code of the operating system, while users as a body are now accustomed to sending source code for their own programs so that they may be compiled on the sundry configurations. The developers, as a matter of fact, send their lowering flocks of legal eagles to swoop on anything which threatens the almighty rate of return. The GPL here works a guerilla war intended to undermine this very obnoxious practice. In general, there are some things that should be public knowledge, and the various OS incarnations are usually well-documented as to their workings; any answer not in the documentation should be there, and if not the source code should be provided. People do have the right to get the market value of their products, but selling a program without providing support for as long as it is usable is like working a fraud upon the purchasers. Society at large will benefit more from protecting the needs of the purchasers rather than maintaining excessive profit in the hands of the developers. Furthermore, a situation can arise like the following. I once worked for a computer manufacturer; they are still in business but not so prominent as then. One of their products had some problems, so I wanted to peek at the source. Unfortunately they had been unable to find the source code since one of the software engineers left; the best guess was that he had used the binary debugger to meet a deadline and never gotten around to putting the corresponding changes in the source code. Thus, while I personally do not like the GPL, I think that as a whole it strikes a much better balance than the normal end-user agreement. Most users never need source code, but without it they never have any guarantees that they can ever obtain the support they may require. What I have stated above are general goals. Anyone should feel free to propose detailed changes in the terms of the GPL or to state their own view of what is highest in the public interest. -- My .signature is on vacation ------------- like me!
major@pta.oz.au (Major) (10/22/90)
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > There is talk of a change to the GPL to require only making the source >of the FSF stuff available. If true, and it's only rumor as far as I >know, The source of the rumor is a posting by RMS calling for discussion, this makes it a fairly well-substantiated rumor by USENET standards. >then which GPL applies to programs which say that they are >copyright under the conditions of the GPL? The FSF suggest that authors use words to the effect "This program may be copied in accordance with the GNU Public Licence version 1.0, or any later version, at your option" if this is done, the answer is obvious if not you'se on yer own guys. Major
major@pta.oz.au (Major) (10/22/90)
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > There is talk of a change to the GPL to require only making the source >of the FSF stuff available. If true, and it's only rumor as far as I >know, The source of the rumor is a posting by RMS calling for discussion, this makes it a fairly well-substantiated rumor by USENET standards. >then which GPL applies to programs which say that they are >copyright under the conditions of the GPL? The FSF suggest that authors use words to the effect "This program may be copied in accordance with the GNU Public Licence version 1.0, or any later version, at your option" if this is done, the answer is obvious if not you'se on yer own guys. Major +--------------------------------------------------+------------------------+ | Domain: major@pta.oz.au | Phone: + 61 9 474-2600 | | UUCP: {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!pta.oz.au!major | Fax: + 61 9 474-1221 | | Mail: Box T1680 GPO, Perth WA 6001, Australia | [this space to let] | +--------------------------------------------------+------------------------+ Incendiarati non carborundum: Don't let the flamers grind you down.