[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Paul Weaver wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: >> You may have paid for a licence to use software and paid for some >> media to transport that software to your machine(s), but you only >> own software you have written yourself (and if you release that >> under the GPL, you're the author but no longer the owner anyway). > > You "own" it as much as if you didn't release it under the GPL. ? Sorry, untrue (and confusing). The licensee does not own any software. Don't confuse author, owner and licensee. The licensee does not own anything. The author gives away "ownership" when using a copyleft licence. My GPL code is not mine to do with as I please anymore. Someone else can easily take a previous / current version and take it in their particular direction. Ownership - in regard to steering, restriction of rights and removal from availability - are NOT within my rights as author once I've released the code as GPL. If the code contains any contributions from other authors, I also cannot relicence that code without their consent. Hence, I attribute some files to the Free Software Foundation so that there can be no doubt that relicensing is not an option. i.e. I reassign my copyright to the FSF simply by replacing: Copyright 2006 Neil Williams linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with Copyright 2006 Free Software Foundation Inc. in the licence notice in the relevant file. c.f. Perl - the original author cannot now take Perl away from the community, it cannot be made proprietary. The moment any free software (and much open source software too) is available for download across a public network with a licence notice included, it ceases to be possible for the original author to dictate the future direction of the code or to unilaterally withdraw the code. We demonstrated that with FEMM - the mere fact that I have a copy that was legitimately downloaded before the licence changed means that the new licence does not and cannot apply to me. The FEMM author infringed Robin's rights as a contributor - the problem was that without a clear licence notice in Robin's code it was hard to pursue the case. It was sufficient to merely demonstrate that the licence could not be changed unilaterally. FEMM has since re-appeared as an open source project. http://femm.neil.williamsleesmill.me.uk/ The fact that Robin's code was a small % of the codebase does not matter - he contributed some of the code that constituted the software that was relicenced without his consent. His copyright was infringed. The original author is not above the licence once ANY contribution has been accepted from a third party because that contribution is made under the terms of the *old* licence and the contributed code cannot be put under a different licence without agreement from the copyright holder of that portion of the code. The only option is to rewrite the infringing code - that was not done in the case of FEMM. > You have copyright over it. True - that is never in doubt. The GPL is governed by copyright law but it makes an explicit emphasis on copyleft too. Anyone who contributes to the software (including documentation) also retains copyright over their contribution. > You allow others to copy it given the terms in the GPL, you don't > have to obey those terms as you don't have to accept the GPL, That is ONLY true if you have written 100% of the code yourself in a clean room environment. If you've taken any GPL code into your programme, your programme also needs to be GPL - you ARE bound by that because YOU didn't write that bit of the code. That is why readline is a GPL library. >> That's why free software isn't such a confusing term - software >> cannot be traded like cars, only the media can be traded, the >> software has to be licensed. > > If you want to copy software in certain circumstances you need a > license to copy it, but you don't need a license to run it. Sometimes you do. You are not allowed to install or run proprietary software without accepting the EULA. It is within the remit of a proprietary licence, built on the same copyright laws, to prevent anyone from compiling, executing, viewing, copying, distributing and even storing the programme without consent. That is what "All Rights Reserved" means. > >> Free software therefore means a free licence - a licence that gives >> you freedom to use that software your way. > > No, it gives you the freedom to avoid the restrictions imposed by > copyright law, like making a copy for your neighbour, modifying it > etc. The vast majority of software includes contributions from others. Without the explicit consent of those others, the licence cannot be changed. Unless you have zero input from anyone else, you - as author - are bound by your licence agreement with the other authors. We've been here before with Robin and FEMM. Free software does not allow anyone to avoid anything of copyright law. Free software licences depend on copyright law for enforcement. Copyright does NOT mean the removal of rights, it only means that the copyright holder has the *authority* to grant or remove whichever rights he/she wishes. Copyright is about authors, not owners. Copyright enforcement can only be done by the copyright holder, in accordance with the licence. The copyright holder being not necessarily the same person as the author of the majority of the code. > >> EULA. End User Licence Agreement. > > Which is arguably not a contract, certainly not one I agreed to, yet > I am currently using windows 2000 (with putty, ssh'd into my home > machine) > > If a 5 yearold clicks "I agree" when they install software, then they > aren't hold to the terms of that contract. There are many other > things in contract law about unreasonable terms etc. that apply too. > M$ would disagree. Personally, I cannot afford to test that one in court. There is no real reason to doubt that an EULA is enforceable simply by clicking blindly. It doesn't have to be a legally binding contract, the copyright holder has the authority to dictate how the copyrighted material is used with or without your consent. "Fair usage" is assumed for certain types of copyrighted work but it is up to a court to decide what it really means. The copyright holder undoubtedly has the right to prevent any and all possible uses of the copyrighted material and there is *nothing* you can do to invalidate that outside a courtroom. Your agreement is not actually required for copyright law to be enforceable against you. Besides, you cannot now claim ignorance of copyright law as you have expressed opinions on copyright issues yourself in a public forum. ;-) The EULA dialogue itself is only one part of the package - the software usually comes with a lengthy paper licence and/or a licence file on the original media. Ignorance of the law is no defence and in a business setting, not reading an EULA could give rise to a claim for negligence against you by your employer. All messages signed with 0x28bcb3e3 or 0xa897fd02 are Copyright Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, date as gnupg signature timestamp. :-) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html