[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Paul Weaver wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: >> Paul Weaver wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: >> 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. > > Indeed, although I'm surprised that readline is GPL and not LGPL It is a deliberate choice made by RMS and the FSF. QOF is also a library that is released only under the GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://qof-gen.sourceforge.net/#free Do NOT think of the LGPL as "the GPL for libraries". The LGPL is the LESSER GPL - it is weaker, it is a compromise and the decision to NOT put a library under the GPL should be a strategic, practical, decision - not a blind assumption that it is a library, therefore LGPL. It is free software, therefore it should be GPL. Only in exceptional circumstances should any free software be available under the LGPL. (Naturally, if the package is Perl or Apache module, etc., then a suitable free software GPL-compatible licence should be used but STILL the LGPL should be a licence of last resort.) > Of course you are. Every time I use an ATM I use proprietary > software, and I haven't agreed to any EULA (I'm agreed to a certain > implicit contract, same as when I buy a marsbar from a shop, but > that's not the same thing) That EULA allows you to do that - another EULA may not. >> 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. > > Under what law? Copyright law only covers making a copy Any operation on software involves copying. Software on a storage medium is completely inert. You cannot modify it, execute it or view it without making a copy in memory. The EULA does not necessarily have to allow ANY copying. It may or may not allow copying into memory for the purposes of execution, it could only allow copying into memory for the purpose of display in a read-only mode. > (permament > copy I believe, otherwise CD's would infringe when you play them as > the data is stored in memory temporarilly, as would reading a > webpage). CD's are specifically licensed to allow playback but only to a certain number of people - public broadcast is disallowed in the vast majority of cases. Read the notice on a music CD carefully - it's often printed on the actual CD around the edge. > Running software isn't covered by that. It can be. Executing software involves making a copy in memory. That can be specifically prohibited under copyright law - that is one of the features of the non-disclosure agreements for the Windows source code, that it may not be made into an executable form. Those agreements are based on copyright law because no other law applies. This is not at all uncertain - it is an extremely important point within the software patent discussions because it is central to whether certain types of embedded systems can be patented and the point at which a silicon chip changes from hardcoded ROM to modifiable ROM. Robin or Aaron may be the best people to take that point on. > Installing it to > your computer may be an infringment of copyright law, I can't > remember offhand. You are allowed to (in the UK of course) make > back-up copies of software with no license, again under copyright > law. No. That is a false assumption. "Fair use" is a concept borrowed from public libraries of text. It has NOT been accepted in a UK court that it applies to ANY digital format. "Fair use" actually only applies to text for the specific and limited purposes of "personal research". > The vast majority of large software products, however 9p.c in the > linux kernel could be relicensed with permission of only 2 people. > The 1998 version of lilo is copyrighted by Werner Almesberger alone. > Many small GPL projects have no contributions other than that of the > original author, I've created some myself. You'd be surprised - look closely at the code and the dependencies. > The copyright is held by all contributers, as such the program is > owned by all contributers. The programme is not owned by anyone. See above. I hope I've shown that *holding* copyright is NOT the same as *owning* anything. > Your original point was you lose ownership > of the code when you license under GPL (and somebody accepts that > license), I guess it depends on your definition of "own". Your code > is still your own, you don't lose any rights to it by licensing under > the GPL, you simply grant rights to others. My point is that this is simply a corner case - the vast majority of code simply does not consist of code entirely and completely contributed by one single copyright holder. >> M$ would disagree. Personally, I cannot afford to test that one in >> court. > > That's a whole other story, but I haven't agreed to the Windows 2000 > license, I don't see how I can be held to it's content. You may not see it but if M$ choose to ensure that you do see how this is possible, it will be a US courtroom that makes it clear to you. > Copyright covers copying, not use (unless that use involves copying > -- running a computer program arguably falls under this, however > reading a book clearly doesn't, and there is no way that a copyright > holder of a book would be able to hold anyone to a license > agreement). True. >> 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. > > I wouldn't know, I don't buy proprietry software. That license grants > you rights to copy the work. If you don't accept the license, then > copyright law applies and you can't make a copy except for certain > execptions like Current Affairs, reviews etc. NO! If only copyright law applies, the law is: "All Rights Reserved except by express and written consent of the copyright holder under any and all conditions required by the copyright holder for the duration of the copyright period." >> 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. > > I don't agree to windows EULA's at work, You agree that you will do nothing to bring your employer into legal confrontation with a third party - that is part of your employment contract. Your company HAS accepted the EULA. You work for them. You accept the EULA because you accept working for an employer who requires that you operate under the terms and conditions of that employment. One of those conditions is that you agree to abide by the agreements and contracts made by the employer in the normal and reasonable practice of their work. > I don't feel I'm qualified > to sign a legal contract on behalf of my employer. Other people do, > but that's their choice. You don't have to. Your employer has agreed to the terms and that is all that matters. You agree to accept the conditions of employment and your company agrees to uphold the EULA. Your employment requires you to abide by agreements made by the company in so far as those agreements affect your sphere of work. If your work involves using software controlled by the EULA to achieve tasks that are required of you by your employment contract, then you have an obligation to uphold the agreements that the company has made in good faith concerning the software that was obtained by the company for that task. If you disagree, your only real option is to provide, at your own cost, a replacement piece of software that your employer agrees is comparable and will produce acceptable results. If a company discovers that an employee has copied 10,000 Windows 2000 CD's and sold them at car boot sales, they have the right to begin disciplinary proceedings against that employee in order to reduce their liability should M$ come after them as licence holders of the copied software. >> All messages signed with 0x28bcb3e3 or 0xa897fd02 are Copyright >> Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, date as gnupg signature >> timestamp. > > I take that as implicit consent to reproduce your email on my > computer (storage), and in this reply. If not, too late, sorry I'm > infringing, but I doubt any court would find in your favour. Yes, implicit consent is reasonable in the circumstances that this is a publicly archived mailing list. You do not need my consent to reply - the comment was added just to demonstrate a point. Note that the statement ALSO applies to any private emails sent between us, if any. There, no such consent can be assumed although, again, it would be reasonable to assume that the right to copy the original in a reply is acceptable, especially as the reply would normally include a statement along the lines that the original (as identified by some kind of quoting symbol) was attributable to the copyright holder. See how silly this whole copyright thing becomes in the absence of a free and open licence! -- 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