[ 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:
>
>> 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.
>
> They can, but your original code is still yours,
No, it is not.
> you can do whatever
> you want to it, ignoring the GPL.
Only in the exceptional circumstance that 100% of the code within the
package is under my sole copyright. This INCLUDES libraries and macros
from the build system!! Unless you write the entire thing using no GPL
dependencies, then the entire package must be released as GPL AND you
are bound by the GPL when you distribute the code that includes the
other GPL code when it is linked. To change to a new licence, you would
have to ensure that the elements that you pull in from the wider system
are either replaced or already available under a compatible licence.
> You can't revoke the permission you
> have given to someone else (Ron can't revoke Eric's permission to
> modify the file above), but you still have copyright on the original.
True. The GPL is irrevocable. Once code is distributed under the GPL,
no-one can prevent further distribution and modification of that code
provided that such actions are still within the GPL itself.
>> 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.
>
> That's right, but if you don't have any modifications (the 2003
> version of 9p.c, before Eric's modifications) you can do whatever you
> want, aside from revoke permissions you've already granted.
These corner cases are few and far between. Most packages include code
from multiple authors, most include macros from other GPL packages, most
depend on GPL libraries.
> You can add your own code, and choose not to release the source under
> the GPL, for example.
>
> You don't have any control over what other people do with the code
> (outside of trademark law), but your code is still yours to do with
> as you please.
Only in as far as the code is 100% your own - that is rare.
>> Hence, I attribute some files to the Free Software Foundation so
>> that there can be no doubt that relicensing is not an option.
>
> Admirable, but not neccersary under the terms of the GPL,
True.
> you'll find
> most of the Linux Kernel is copyright of various people (about
> 470ish). If all those people get together and decide that the next
> version of the kernel will not be released under GPL2, then that's
> their choice.
It is and there is talk that at least some of the kernel may not be
available under GPL3.
> You and I will still have rights under the GPL2 license
> that 2.6.14 (or whatever) is running, but their new version would be
> out of our reach.
It is highly unlikely that the kernel could be licensed in such a way as
to be incompatible with a GPL compliant system, GPL2 or GPL3. GPL2 code
will remain compatible with GPL3, it's just that it could not be
released under GPL3 or later.
>
>> c.f. Perl - the original author cannot now take Perl away from the
>> community, it cannot be made proprietary.
>
> No, but he can make modifications to the code that he originally
> wrote, and release it as proprietry. He wouldn't be infringing
> anyone's rights under copyright.
But what's the point of that? The original core code has been rewritten
dozens of times. It bears no resemblance to the current core. It would
undoubtedly be buggy.
>> 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/
>
> In that case that's right. The kernel can't change to GPL3 unless all
> contributers OK it
Not quite true. Not all kernel contributors have removed the section
about "at your option any later version". Those files that have an
unmodified GPL licence notice can be redistributed under any subsequent
version of the GPL.
>, OR any non-OKing contributer's code is removed
> from the kernel (and independently reimplemented as allowed by
> copyright law)
Yes.
>
> In the case where somebody reasigns copyright to an organisation like
> the FSF, the FSF would have to OK it.
Yes.
>> 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.
>
> Inded, he "owns" that code.
He holds the copyright on that code. He does not own it. Very subtle,
but extremely important difference.
> If that code were removed, then he
> wouldn't have a case. It wasn't, so he does have a case.
Yes. The problem was that the case is hard to prove because his
contribution is not easily identified.
>> 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.
>
> Yes, but the original release didn't have robins code, and was whoely
> owned by the original author, who can relicense.
Not quite. The author accepted input from others, as well as Robin. We
don't know if those others were approached and consented to the new
licence. All we do know is that Robin did not consent - nor was he even
consulted.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Yes, they own their contribution, which is what I said in the first
> place!
No, you keep equating ownership with holding the copyright.
Example:
#include <stdio.h>
int
main (int argv, char** argv)
{
printf ("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
The actual snippet is public domain by sheer repetition but imagine it
was a slightly more complex snippet. I am automatically granted
copyright over that code. Acknowledging that copyright does nothing to
change that, except that it makes it clear to others about the copyright
holder for that section.
I now release that code under the GPL. It is distributed and downloaded
by others under that licence. I accept a patch that allows translation
of the string so that French and Russian users can see "Hello World" in
their own languages.
I still hold the copyright in the *modified* version (along with the
copyright holder(s) of the patch) because it is a modified version of my
copyrighted work, but just who is supposed to "own" the modified work?
Ownership of software is a flawed concept and has no place in free
software. Please stop any discussion of ownership, it simply confuses
the issues around copyright.
Copyright != ownership and copyright is all that matters. Ownership is
irrelevant.
It is copyright that dictates whether I can redistribute the original
unpatched code - it also determines whether someone else can
redistribute the unpatched or patched code instead of me, including
against my express wishes. Ownership of the code is irrelevant because
ownership confers no additional benefits on the copyright holder nor
places any additional restrictions on the user than what is already
granted under copyright law and the licence which itself is underwritten
by copyright law, not ownership.
Ownership takes us right back to the original point. You only "own" a
physical object. Something that has an owner is an item of property.
Software is NOT a physical object, it is an abstract concept.
Who "owns" the idea behind a patent? The patent holder only holds the
patent and that can be traded so that the patent holder is not the same
person as the original person with the idea.
Who "owns" E=mc2?
Who "owns" Boyle's Law?
Who "owns" Newton's Laws?
You can own a book that expresses those ideas - you cannot own the ideas
themselves.
You can own the media that stores a copy of the software, you cannot own
the software itself.
(continued . . .)
--
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