| "Hole in GNU GPL?" |
Login/Create an Account
| 303 comments | Search Discussion |
|
(1
) | 2
| 3
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50) |
This sucks (Score:1)
by Kwikymart
(/dev/null) on Monday January 17, @07:21PM EST
(#1)
(User
Info) http://127.0.0.1
|
This cant be good for business so to speak. But does it really make any difference, even if the GPL is violated by someone, legal or illegal, who will represent GPL in sueing their asses???
What's a .sig? |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:This sucks (Score:1)
by steintr on Monday January 17, @07:27PM EST
(#7)
(User
Info) |
The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers who work (at no charge) to help defend free software against license violations. One of them happens to be my one of my professors. :)
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
FSF audits? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @07:56PM EST
(#47)
|
| Does the FSF do audits on people to make sure they aren't charging for the software itself? Does Redhat submit an itemized list of what the $30 they charge for the distribution goes to pay for?
Something like:
CD media ... $1
Printed Documentation ... $10
Phone Support ... $5
Flashy Box ... $14
-------------------------------
$30
Something like that?
?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:FSF audits? (Score:3, Insightful)
by friedo
(friedo@spam-me-not.dork.com) on Monday January 17, @08:00PM EST
(#53)
(User
Info) http://friedo.rh.rit.edu/
|
It doesn't matter. You can charge any ammount of money you want for your binaries, distribution media, etc. All the GPL requires is that you make the source code available for free or for the cost of shipping.
Friedo
Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel. |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:FSF audits? (Score:2, Informative)
by mayoff
(mayoffslashdot@dqd.com) on Monday January 17, @08:06PM EST
(#57)
(User
Info) |
The GPL allows you to charge for the software: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, ..." (section 1, paragraph 2). You can charge any fee you want. The GPL limits the fee you can charge for distributing the source code, IF you don't distribute the source code with the application (section 3b).
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:FSF audits? (Score:1)
by Scott Wood
(scott@geekland.cx) on Monday January 17, @08:10PM EST
(#63)
(User
Info) |
There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits making a profit on
distribution... you simply can't change the license, so that they can't
prevent, for example, cheapbytes from distributing the same software for
a much lower price. The FSF itself charges quite a bit for their CDROM
distributions (up to the deluxe set of $5000 for all GNU software
compiled for your platform of choice). They also charge corporations
more than individuals. The GPL enforces the freedom of the software, not
the distribution price.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:FSF audits? (Score:1)
by talonyx
(binary_node@hotmail.com) on Monday January 17, @09:27PM EST
(#133)
(User
Info) http://talonyx.cjb.net/
|
>... you simply can't change the license
I guess the GPL is not licensed under the GPL then.
...Can you license a document under the license that _is_ the document? Interesting thought...
I suppose it's good that the GPL isn't GPL'd though, otherwise we'd have GPLfOrKeWlWaReZdOoDz!11! and people would change their GPL'd program to any version of the GPL they wanted, and then they could close open source programs... and i'm rambling.
I hope I at least get a (2, Funny) for this one. I've been trying for two months to get a Funny. :)
"Justice pleases me always." (Che Guavara) |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:FSF audits? (Score:1)
by Foogle
(foogle@adelphia.net) on Monday January 17, @10:48PM EST
(#189)
(User
Info) |
Well the GPL *is* free, for all intents and purposes. Lots of people release their software under modified versions of existing license. There's nothing stopping you from distributing your software under an altered GPL.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
- They Might Be Giants |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This sucks (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:12AM EST
(#239)
|
If he is your professor and does work for the FSF, he should know better than to refer to GNU as "Linux".
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This sucks (Score:1)
by robwicks
(rawrob@mindspring.com) on Monday January 17, @07:28PM EST
(#10)
(User
Info) http://resumes.dice.com/robwicks
|
his cant be good for business so to speak. But does it really make any difference, even if the GPL is violated by someone, legal or illegal, who will
represent GPL in sueing their asses??? I believe the Free Software Foundation would represent the GPL. I seem to recall that question coming up before.
"Logic . . . merely enables one to be wrong with authority"
Doctor Who |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Ungrounded Lightning
(rod@node.com) on Monday January 17, @07:56PM EST
(#46)
(User
Info) |
As I read the law, Stallman is right:
- Companies can keep their internal modifications secret as long as they don't distribute the code OUTSIDE their non-disclosure boundary - and once they distribute the object outside that boundary, they must also distribute the source.
- Giving the code to people INSIDE the non-disclosure boundary is not "distribution" within the meaning of the GPL, so it does not confer on such people the right to disclose the modified code without the approval of the company's official decision-making process.
This is good. It means that a company can adopt GPLed open-source software without taking an increased risk that any company-secret changes they make for internal use only will be disclosed without their permission. That will make them more willing to adopt GPLed open-source software.
They'll still have to distribute the source to their changes if they distribute the changes themselves generally. And they're more likely to distribute anything useful but NON-company-secret than they would if they were working with closed-source code.
The only problem I see is if this speculation by legally-uninformed people, raising a spectre of employees disclosing their secrets, scares off management that otherwise would adopt GNU-licensed code.
(I once was "Ungrounded Lightning Rod" but slashdot slashed
off my " Rod". Is that why they call Linux a "Unix workalike"?) |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:0, Redundant)
by Lynn Winebarger
(lynn@free-expression.org) on Monday January 17, @08:27PM EST
(#84)
(User
Info) http://www.free-expression.org
|
I'd like to respond to this:
Companies can keep their internal modifications secret as long as they don't distribute the code OUTSIDE their non-disclosure boundary - and once they distribute the object outside that boundary, they must also distribute the source.
That should be as long as they don't distribute the modifications outside the corporation. NDA's with outside parties can't be held to overrule the GPL (if the originator of the modifications thinks they do, then they are legally precluded from distributing their modifications by the GPL/copyright law).
As to the second point, the boundaries are determined by courts, in particular that corporations are legally considered to be individuals. "NDA boundaries" have no legal standing as individuals. Thus distributing outside the corp _is_ distribution, regardless of any NDAs.
Lynn
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:2, Insightful)
by Lynn Winebarger
(lynn@free-expression.org) on Monday January 17, @08:28PM EST
(#85)
(User
Info) http://www.free-expression.org
|
I'd like to respond to this:
Companies can keep their internal modifications secret as long as they don't distribute the code OUTSIDE their non-disclosure boundary - and once they distribute the object outside that boundary, they must also distribute the source.
That should be as long as they don't distribute the modifications outside the corporation. NDA's with outside parties can't be held to overrule the GPL (if the originator of the modifications thinks they do, then they are legally precluded from distributing their modifications by the GPL/copyright law).
As to the second point, the boundaries are determined by courts, in particular that corporations are legally considered to be individuals. "NDA boundaries" have no legal standing as individuals. Thus distributing outside the corp _is_ distribution, regardless of any NDAs.
Lynn
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
NDAs and body parts. (Score:3, Insightful)
by Ungrounded Lightning
(rod@node.com) on Monday January 17, @09:10PM EST
(#117)
(User
Info) |
That should be as long as they don't distribute the modifications outside the corporation. NDA's with outside parties can't be held to overrule the GPL
NDAs with outside parties are made as part of including the outside party in a contract which changes the outside party to an inside party, an agent of the corporation with defined responsibilities. Typically such a person would be a consultant or a prospective hire. This applies whether the "person" is an individual human or another corporation, limited partnership, or what-have-you.
The outside party becomes a "body part" of the corporate "person", like a fingernail or a ganglion. (Ideally - an important section of the brain. B-) )
(I can imagine a company's lawyer trying to hack up a shrink-wrap contract that purports to be an NDA. But since the body of the relationship in such a case would be the company providing code and the customer paying for it, the subterfuge would be transparent, and no doubt immediately struck if it came to court.)
(if the originator of the modifications thinks they [override the copyleft], then they are legally precluded from distributing their modifications by the GPL/copyright law).
But they AREN'T "overriding" the COPYLEFT. They're creating a relationship between the parties which makes the "person" who signed the NDA a part of an association. Granted he's a limited part. But so are the corporate employees and officers.
Once he's part of the association, giving him the modified code is not "distribution". He can still redistribute the UNmodified version. But the modifications (including any HE makes as part of his deal) are the company's undistributed SECRET. And they stay proprietary until the company releases the signatory from the agreement, publishes the secret, or the secret is exposed through no fault of an NDA signatory.
As to the second point, the boundaries are determined by courts, in particular that corporations are legally considered to be individuals. "NDA boundaries" have no legal standing as individuals. Thus distributing outside the corp _is_ distribution, regardless of any NDAs.
"NDA boundaries" do not have to have legal standing as individuals. "NDA boundary" is simply a shorthand term for defining the location of the "skin" of the corporation's (or other association's) "body" with respect to a particular secret.
(I once was "Ungrounded Lightning Rod" but slashdot slashed
off my " Rod". Is that why they call Linux a "Unix workalike"?) |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
GPL too entrenched to subvert in court? (Score:1)
by sgml4kids on Monday January 17, @10:42PM EST
(#179)
(User
Info) |
I think the real issue, both in the USA and worldwide, is:
Would a court overturn the GPL given that it seems to work very well as intended?
It's entrenched and established and everyone understands its purpose. The problem with the GPL is it is (at the time, necessarily) expressed in the language of old-school intellectual property concepts. It's abundantly clear that RMS didn't want those rules to apply to GPL'd software and the entire world has accepted that premise.
Face it, you have to look *really* hard to find a loophole in the GPL and those loopholes are usually based on semantics.
The worrisome part of the GPL is not that someone will invalidate it by discovering a loophole. That just ain't gonna happen. What worries me is when a company or individual violates the GPL can we prove it in court?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:GPL too entrenched to subvert in court? (Score:1)
by jdcs on Monday January 17, @11:41PM EST
(#217)
(User
Info) |
You're missing the point. If a corporation is restricting re-distribution modified GPL code you don't have to sue them. Just start distributing it. Make them sue you -- and if they file a suit, countersue for court costs. I still think the best thing for the federal and state governments to do to Microsoft is not to threaten breakups or fines. Just tell MS to behave responsibly or refuse to prosecute any copyright infringement suits on Microsoft's behalf. With a threat like that if MS doesn't co-operate they'll disappear. Redhat & Caldera and Corel are selling support, MS is selling freedom from prosecution for piracy. If it's legal to avoid paying MS (or the Justice Department declares it is) millions of folks would jump at the chance!
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:2)
by um... Lucas
(lk@caralis.com) on Monday January 17, @11:54PM EST
(#226)
(User
Info) http://www.caralis.com/us/lucas/
|
Can one company contract to another company to make modifications to a GPLed product under the terms that those modifications may only be distributed back to the original, hiring company?
I think that's the real hang up right now... If that is the case, then essentially, I can create a product based on GPLed software and then only sell the software to people that agree to my terms, which may override the GPL.
Otherwise, if a company has a GPLed product, everyone in the world would be theoretically allowed to phone, fax, mail, or email requests fot their modifications to the code, even if they weren't in distribution.
This whole confusion about who gets what binary and source, etc, is escalating. I'd always interpreted the GPL as being essentially, if someone wanted the source, they get it. If you didn't like that, you'd choose a different license. But now, it appears that one can develope under the GPL and withhold distribution from people who don't agree to your additional terms...
Oh... if only i had the money to burn, i'd cause a major infraction on the GPL tomorrow, just so everyone would know where they stand... But, I don't have the money, I don't have the product, and I don't have the time... Oh well....
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:4, Insightful)
by werdna
(werdna at gate dot net) on Monday January 17, @08:47PM EST
(#103)
(User
Info) http://www.carltonfields.com
|
Giving the code to people INSIDE the non-disclosure boundary is not "distribution" within the meaning of the GPL, so it does not confer on such people the right to disclose the modified code without the approval of the company's official decision-making process.
I think this may be too broad, legally speaking. Absent express definitions to the contrary, I believe a court would interpret "distribution" in the context in which it is used: a license to exercise exclusive rights to distriubute under the Copyright Act.
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease, or lending;
Accordingly, we should look for a transfer of title, rental, lease or lending. Accordingly, control or possession of a copy transferred among employees or agents of the corporation probably do not constitute a distribution. On the other hand, control or possession of a copy by a non-employee, non-agent, even if subject to nondisclosure would probably constitute, at least, a lending (bailment) of the copy.
There are cases, I recall, holding that infringement occurs when a consultant/third-party is given access to copyrighted works for the purpose of repairing software on behalf of the licensee. However, I seem to remember that these cases went off on copying, rather than distribution.
I'm just spitballing here, but it seems to me that a plaintiff asserting breach of GPL would probably do just fine in the case of a defendant who gave a customer/non-disclosee copies of a work.
It would be fun to research the judicial gloss on this statutory language to see how it informs the question of distribution within a corporation.
Nevertheless, for these reasons, I think "non-disclosure boundary" is probably too broad a range to permit non-distribution exchanges of copies. I imagine that the result would be probably much closer to an "in the family" (employees and actual agents) test.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:2)
by Ungrounded Lightning
(rod@node.com) on Monday January 17, @09:55PM EST
(#154)
(User
Info) |
On the other hand, control or possession of a copy by a non-employee, non-agent, even if subject to nondisclosure would probably constitute, at least, a lending (bailment) of the copy.
But the signing of an NDA creates an association between the parties, making the party of the second part an agent of the party of the first, no less than an employee would be. So giving him a copy is not "distributing to the public". Title remains with the secret's owner.
The copy is a "derivative work" within the meaning of:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
The owner of the copyleft has licensed the secret's owner to make such derivitive works, in return for agreeing to certain conditions on public distribution. Since giving a copy to his agent is not a public distribution, the terms of the license are not violated.
There are cases, I recall, holding that infringement occurs when a consultant/third-party is given access to copyrighted works for the purpose of repairing software on behalf of the licensee. However, I seem to remember that these cases went off on copying, rather than distribution.
Precicely. The second party got in trouble for making the unauthorized copy. The GPL encourages you to make copies, either unmodified or derivative, and just places certain obligations on those who distribute them publicly.
(I once was "Ungrounded Lightning Rod" but slashdot slashed
off my " Rod". Is that why they call Linux a "Unix workalike"?) |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:2)
by werdna
(werdna at gate dot net) on Tuesday January 18, @01:11AM EST
(#263)
(User
Info) http://www.carltonfields.com
|
But the signing of an NDA creates an association between the parties, making the party of the second part an agent of the party of the first, no less than an employee would be. So giving him a copy is not "distributing to the public". Title remains with the secret's owner.
That would be bad lawyering! The mere creation of an "association" (if that term had any legal meaning in this context) betwen parties would not create an agency relationship, no matter how many "parts" and "parties" may be recited in an attempt to make that conclusory and unsupported assertion sound lawyerly.
Under Florida law, at least, agency is a very special legal relationship with very particular fidcuiary duties and obligations, typically granting the agent a right to make certain legal acts that are binding upon the principal as though the principal had herself taken those actions. For this reason and others, an NDA does not, by itself, create an agency. In other states, your mileage may vary on this point, but I doubt it.
Indeed, most well-drafted agreements, including most NDA agreements, expressly disclaim the creation of an agency, joint venture or partnership as a belt-and-suspenders measure. Though these agreements also create associations between the parties, they likewise do not create an agency.
So giving him a copy is not "distributing to the public". Title remains with the secret's owner.
Reread section 106 -- title need not pass to render an act one of distribution. Even if this were not the case, the argument is flawed on its face. By this analysis, a distributor of pirated records could avoid prosecution merely by having his customers sign an NDA as a condition of sale.
Nonsense.
The copy is a "derivative work" within the meaning of:(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Of course, even if that were true, it would not change any of the preceding analysis. GPL expressly permits creation of a "work based on the program," a term which is defined to include derivative works, provided that the conditions set forth in Section 2 are met. Section 2 only meaningfully limits the licensure of copies made upon publication or distribution. Section 2 goes further, expressly stating that "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
As an aside, it may be interesting to some to note that not all copies of a work are derivative works within the meaning of the Copyright Act. In particular, verbatim copying, mere "framing" of a work, or failing to add meaningful original text would not fall within the statutory definition in Section 101.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Why not just use BSD license? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:40PM EST
(#143)
|
It sounds like the BSD license doesn't have all these stupid problems. It is MORE free than the GPL in the fact that you can do WHATEVER you want with the software. It's not limited or tainted in a way that all derivative works of it have to be GPL'd as well. This is a GOOD thing and Linux should adopt this immediately. There's no reason why a company shouldn't be able to take Linux, add some nice commercial proprietary binary only stuff into it and then sell it. It is called the free market.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Why not just use BSD license? (Score:2, Insightful)
by anonymous cowerd
(WKiernan@concentric.net) on Monday January 17, @11:46PM EST
(#220)
(User
Info) http://www.concentric.net/~Wkiernan/index.html
|
> There's no reason why a company shouldn't be able to take Linux,
> add some nice commercial proprietary binary only stuff into it and
> then sell it.
No reason?! Well, take for example the shell program mc. According to its help page, mc was written by Miguel de Icaza, Janne Kukonlehto, and ten other programmers. Since they wrote it, they had the privilege of copyrighting it, ANY WAY THEY PLEASE. As the creators and owners of the program, it was not yours, not mine, but theirs and only theirs to dispose of.
That means that they could come up with any licensing terms that satisfy their whims. They could have offered it as a commercial product, to be paid for on either a per-user, or per-CPU, or per-site basis. They could have released it under the terms that it could only be used on Tuesdays, and then only by left-handed Zoroastrians. Or they could have given it away absolutely for free, as you suggest.
Mr. de Icaza and Co. chose not to give mc away for free. They chose, instead, to restrict its redistribution by placing it under the GPL. In terms of the profits that the developers made from this program, the results are the same as if they had given it away for free: zero. From the point of view of us in the general public, for them to choose the more restrictive GPL rather than placing their code in the public domain may well have resulted, paradoxically, in more access for us; in exchange for us losing the right to trivially modify mc and then drag it into the proprietary domain, we are guaranteed free access not only to the code as it exists today but to all future versions as well.
But it doesn't matter whether Mr. de Icaza & Co. had good or bad intentions when they chose to license mc as they did, nor did they have to consider whether the license they chose was good or bad for society in general (except of course they would have to live with their consciences). mc is their code and they were free to license it however they liked.
Besides, why do you imagine that one can't add proprietary stuff to a Linux distribution? An example of this is a shrinkwrapped deluxe Redhat distribution that's sitting on my bookshelf. It came with at least two proprietary products (BRU backup software and a commercial accelerated X server) right in the same box with the GPL'd Linux kernel and GNU tool set.
> It is called the free market.
I may be in a minority here, but I at least don't get all swoony over the phrase "free market," and I have to laugh at the notion embedded in the phrase "invisible hand." (What do you mean "invisible"? I can see it right there, coming out of Alan Greenspan's sleeve.) The so-called "free market," a propagndistic misnomer if I ever heard one, isn't some a priori ideal, neither is it some kind of miraculous automatically-thriving, self-regulating socio-economic powerhouse; instead it is a delicate, probably inherently unstable system which requires constant effort just to keep it afloat. Please have a look at Karl Polanyi's book, The Great Transformnation for details of its antecedents, its early history and its weaknesses.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Why not just use BSD license? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @01:36AM EST
(#273)
|
> Why not just use BSD license?
The discussion is regarding companies using existing GPL software, not writing their own. So speculating about other licenses is not really relevant to the discussion.
> This is a GOOD thing and Linux should adopt this immediately.
Unfortunately, the Linux kernel itself is written by hundreds of different people-- you'd have to get the consent of each one to change the whole license.
Or else wait another 90 years or so for the copyright to expire (or probably 200, at the rate Congress is extending copyright terms)
> There's no reason why a company shouldn't be able to take Linux, add some nice commercial
> proprietary binary only stuff into it and then sell it. It is called the free market.
I agree. I should be able to take a copy of Windows NT, add my own proprietary code, and sell it without giving Microsoft a penny, either.
By the way, companies do do this with Linux, and it is legal: it's called Linux distributions.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Why not just use BSD license? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @02:21AM EST
(#286)
|
| There's no reason why a company shouldn't be able to take Linux, add some nice commercial proprietary binary only stuff into it and then sell it.
You're right, there is no reason they can't do so. Of course this has nothing to do with the GPL. Virtually every Linux distribution includes proprietary software of some sort (even Debian includes a Myth II demo). The only requirement of the GPL is that you cannot take software that was released under the GPL & release it under a license other then the GPL. Therefore, you must distribute source code only for those portions of your product that are GPL'd.
It is called the free market.
This has nothing to with the free market. Stealing the work of others to make a profit is not "freedom" except for those who do the stealing. Virtually no one else involved benefits in the long run. BSD & similar licenses are fine, but implying that they are "more free" is flawed. They are more free if you want to create a product based on them. If you are simply a user, they may be "less free" in the long run as the product may become fractured or expensive. The GPL is designed to be "more" free in the long-term, rather then the short-term. I don't mean this as a criticism of BSD-like licenses, only the authors flawed view that they are "more" free. In fact they are comparably, though differently, free. (And I don't mean to imply that all people who create products based on BSD'd software are thieves, only those who do so in the name of "the Free Market")
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:2, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:58PM EST
(#158)
|
Giving the code to people INSIDE the non-disclosure boundary is not "distribution" within the meaning of the GPL
I don't follow this. Why not? Heck, there was so much doubt about whether *the same person copying a program from hard disk into memory* was copying prohibited by the Copyright Act that Congress explicitly permitted this (see sec. 117(a)(1) of the Copyright Act). Certainly, then, giving a copy to an employee would be prohibited. See sec. 106(1) and sec. 109 of the Copyright Act. Section 109, in particular, permits a person to dispose of a copy of a program, but prohibits leasing or renting for indirect commercial purposes (which presumably includes saving money) -- thus a corporation could not even "lease" one copy of a program to an employee, much less transfer copies to the lot of them.
Also, while sec. 106(3) of the Copyright Act, which pertains to distribution rights reserved exclusively to the author, refers to a "public" distribution, the GPL does not refer to a "public" distribution; instead it refers only to a distribution. This omission is of course significant and goes to the intent of the author not to permit non-public distributions.
In case you are still not convinced, think about the fact that the GPL pertains not just to distribution, but also to copying (though it does not pertain to mere "use"). Either before or during any non-public distribution (or use for that matter -- hence the need for sec. 109 of the Copyright Act) you must make a copy.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
copying is distribution? (Score:2)
by MattMann on Monday January 17, @11:27PM EST
(#206)
(User
Info) |
| Moderators, moderate this AC up! This post seems to make more sense
than all the others put together:
a company can't buy one copy of a copyrighted work and distribute it to all employees, so how can it distribute modified copylefted software to all of its employees without triggering the GPL-source clause?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:copying is distribution? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:41AM EST
(#254)
|
| Proprietary licenses are not about distribution; under the MS EULA, for instance, you have no right to distribute the software at all. The EULA defines the terms under which you are permitted to use the software. And if you read it, you'll find that you can't make more than one copy of the software, can't run it on more than one computer at a time, etc. This is what prevents a corporation from buying one Office license for the whole organization. They have to buy one for each user, but the licenses are held by the corporation, not by the employee.
The GPL, on the other hand, places no restriction on the use of the software ("The act of
running the Program is not restricted...."). Holding a license to the software under the GPL entitles a corporation to use it however they see fit. IF they distribute it, on the other hand, they must provide the source code.
I gather, from some of the better posts I've read, that giving binaries to employees is not distribution, so long as the software is used for the purposes of the corporation (i.e., giving it to employees to take home and run on their own computers to do their own things won't work). Further, a court would likely not look kindly on a "shell corporation" set up solely to defeat the terms of the GPL. So there's no real loophole here.
AC
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:copying is distribution? (Score:2)
by MattMann on Tuesday January 18, @01:03AM EST
(#261)
(User
Info) |
| I just skimmed it quickly so I'm not going to
stake my life on it, but I just read the GPL and it does not distinguish between copying and distribution in a way that differentiates them.
Copyright law forbids you to make copies, whether or not EULAs do. GPLed software does not grant you the right to copy unless you agree to the distribution terms. I don't see how GPLed software is distinguished from any other copyrighted material. I can't copy copyrighted books, or music , etc. I can't distribute GPLed software binaries unless I agree to make the source available, including modifications. It does not distinguish between who copies are distributed to.
P.S. The post this is a reply to talked about a "loophole". The rest of this thread is about a loophole. This question is about whether the GPL is more restrictive than I've heard told.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:copying is distribution? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @01:52AM EST
(#278)
|
| No, no, no. "Copying" and "distributing" are two different actions. Under the GPL, I can make all the copies I want of the software, all the while agreeing in principle to the distribution terms, but so long as I don't actually distribute the copies, I'm not obligated to give the source to anybody. Distribution occurs when copies are exchanged among distinct legal entities. A corporation is a single legal entity. Therefore, a corporation can make as many copies of GPLed software as it likes and use it on all of its computers (since the GPL does not restrict usage), and still not be bound to give away source code.
Read the GPL again more closely if you still disagree, as there are some subtleties here. "Copy" and "distribute" are not used synonymously. In some places it says "copy and distribute," in other places it says only "copy," and in still others it says only "distribute." It all boils down to this: in order to do anything with the software (including copying or using it) you have to agree to the distribution terms. But merely copying it or merely using it is not the same as distributing it.
Sorry if I was unclear.
AC
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:2)
by um... Lucas
(lk@caralis.com) on Tuesday January 18, @12:01AM EST
(#230)
(User
Info) http://www.caralis.com/us/lucas/
|
Employees of corporations generally have no rights. They do not own the computer they use, the programs installed on it, or the data they generate. They're merely tools. They don't agree to the licenses of any software they use, the corporation does. Therefore, it's not the employees right or responsibility to distributed altered GPLed software if that work was done in a "work for hire" fashion (the general way most work is done for company's... you retain no rights to it and the company retains all).
I'm just poking around at all sides of this argument... I'm sure i've contradicted myself at some point across the past weeks. But this seems plausible to me.
But in that light, I can see how a company could fire, *with cause*, an employee who distributed GPL'ed software outside of the company. Trade secrets. Yes, you have a loyalty to the license, but first and formost, most companies demand loyalty from you. If you can't agree to do as you're told (code this for internal use only) then you should say so, rather than ignoring their orders. You won't be held liable for a GPL violation if it's found to be one, the company will... You were acting under orders.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:04AM EST
(#233)
|
| Giving the code to people INSIDE the non-disclosure boundary is not "distribution"
Yeah ... kind of like buying one copy of Office2000 and letting everyone install it inside the "boundaries" of the company/home/circle of friends.
err no wait is that illegal? oh well everyone does it .... kind of like Americans smoking pot. I'm Dutch and pot use is legal here - no further comment on the multiple installs of commercial O$es ;-)
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @02:00AM EST
(#280)
|
But this is exactly what Francois-Rene Rideau is objecting to! Why is this so difficult to understand?
Let me try to explain in a different way. Suppose that a company is allowed to distribute modified versions of GPL code internally and has the right to prevent their employees from freely distributing it outside of the company. To see how this can potentially be a problem, imagine this company becoming very large employing thousands of workers each of which are prevented from freely redistributing useful code. Now imagine they merge with another large company extending their domain of secrecy. One can even imagine other companies getting together and creating a spinoff corporation whose sole purpose is to extend that domain. Mr Rideau's small hole becomes a big problem if corporations get very large, either individually or collectively. Now is this so far off? Are corporations these days becoming larger and more powerful or smaller? Many companies have internal economies that dwarf nation states. Companies are indeed getting bigger and more powerful and this can only be viewed as good if you like powerful, unaccountable institutions who restrict public participation and democracy. Now, for arguments sake, imagine corporations growing so large that they effectively control all aspects of the public sphere. The GPL as it stands would be a minor obstacle if you can make the legal argument that your domain is a country itself!
Now if you can agree that this scenario would be a problem, then why is it not a problem on a smaller scale? What is currently stopping the corporation's expansion? Not much apart from hopeful signs like the Seattle protests.
Further, Mr Rideau is absolutely correct in saying that corporations are being given the status of immortal global citizens within the court systems, another subtle power grab without public involvement.
All of this would be of little consequence if corporations were not unaccountable tyrannies that have internal structures as totalitarian as anything that humans have devised. They have a top-down structure that severely constrains freedom. If you have demonstrated that you can properly conform you may be inserted somewhere in the pyramid where you take orders from above and delegate them out below. But most people are at the bottom, renting themselves in order to put food on the table.
I am kind of surprised at Mr Stallman's down-playing of this issue considering that he had a direct experience of a similar nature. Mr. Stallman had to leave MIT in order to write GPL code because otherwise his substantial work would have been property of MIT and could never have been freely distributed, precisely what Mr. Rideau is saying.
I am not certain how much of an effect GPLed code will be in changing our lives for the better but it may encourage public understanding and political debate/action within the software community.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Stallman's right IMHO. In this case that's good (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @02:02AM EST
(#282)
|
But this is exactly what Francois-Rene Rideau is objecting to! Why is this so difficult to understand?
Let me try to explain in a different way. Suppose that a company is allowed to distribute modified versions of GPL code internally and has the right to prevent their employees from freely distributing it outside of the company. To see how this can potentially be a problem, imagine this company becoming very large employing thousands of workers each of which are prevented from freely redistributing useful code. Now imagine they merge with another large company extending their domain of secrecy. One can even imagine other companies getting together and creating a spinoff corporation whose sole purpose is to extend that domain. Mr Rideau's small hole becomes a big problem if corporations get very large, either individually or collectively. Now is this so far off? Are corporations these days becoming larger and more powerful or smaller? Many companies have internal economies that dwarf nation states. Companies are indeed getting bigger and more powerful and this can only be viewed as good if you like powerful, unaccountable institutions who restrict public participation and democracy. Now, for arguments sake, imagine corporations growing so large that they effectively control all aspects of the public sphere. The GPL as it stands would be a minor obstacle if you can make the legal argument that your domain is a country itself!
Now if you can agree that this scenario would be a problem, then why is it not a problem on a smaller scale? What is currently stopping the corporation's expansion? Not much apart from hopeful signs like the Seattle protests.
Further, Mr Rideau is absolutely correct in saying that corporations are being given the status of immortal global citizens within the court systems, another subtle power grab without public involvement.
All of this would be of little consequence if corporations were not unaccountable tyrannies that have internal structures as totalitarian as anything that humans have devised. They have a top-down structure that severely constrains freedom. If you have demonstrated that you can properly conform you may be inserted somewhere in the pyramid where you take orders from above and delegate them out below. But most people are at the bottom, renting themselves in order to put food on the table.
I am kind of surprised at Mr Stallman's down-playing of this issue considering that he had a direct experience of a similar nature. Mr. Stallman had to leave MIT in order to write GPL code because otherwise his substantial work would have been property of MIT and could never have been freely distributed, precisely what Mr. Rideau is saying.
I am not certain how much of an effect GPLed code will be in changing our lives for the better but it may encourage public understanding and political debate/action within the software community.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This sucks (Score:1)
by DMuse on Monday January 17, @08:17PM EST
(#74)
(User
Info) |
| if the GPL is violated by someone, legal or illegal, who will represent GPL in sueing their asses???
It would be up to the copyright holder (the original author) to realize that the GPL was being violated, and that therefore his/her copyright was being violated. This copyright holder could then launch a lawsuit for copyright violation. As others noted, I'm sure the FSF would be there to back the individual up but the key concept is that everyone who releases material under the GPL is still the copyright holder.
The GPL is just that, a license. It is standard, well accepted and used by many. Though the license was created by GNU, it doesn't give GNU any special rights.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
It's bullshit (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @10:33PM EST
(#175)
|
In a word, the alleged hole in question is bullshit. Comrade Stallman's right, the other guy's wrong.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This sucks (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:32AM EST
(#249)
|
Roblimo shouldn't apologize for this. This discussion should go on here.
It's clear that the problem with the GPL is not really a problem. The GPL like the internet will interpret these kinds of bastardizations of the spirit of the GPL as NOISE and route around them as being irrelevant. If you make something free, someone should be able to make it un-free for their purposes, and we should be free to ignore it. The free code will not disappear. Changes not "distributed" need not be stopped.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Its still okay (Score:2)
by PG13
(gerdes@caltech.edu) on Monday January 17, @07:25PM EST
(#3)
(User
Info) |
No matter what interpratation you choose the GPL is probably still good. Sure some group of people could decide to create their own private version of GPLed software without legal fault, however, they are still restricted from selling their modified code. It is this restriction on commercial transactions which saves the GPL if "group liscenses" are valid.
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on an epic scale. |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:1)
by 348
(beeoch22@hotmail.com) on Monday January 17, @07:29PM EST
(#12)
(User
Info) |
| Sure some group of people could decide to create their own private version of GPLed software without legal fault, however, they
are still restricted from selling their modified code.
For now.
It seems like only a matter of time before the lawyers find the loopholes. Ka-Ching Lawyers make more money on both sides of the fence.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:1)
by pseudo_daoist on Monday January 17, @09:15PM EST
(#123)
(User
Info) |
| If, hypothetically, the Justice Department decided
not to break up microsoft, but, instead, all software
that they have released since, say, 1995, has to be
released under the GPL, does anybody else think that
their lawyers wouldn't find a way to circumvent the
GPL?
xan
That which is, is not.
That which is not, is. |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @07:37PM EST
(#29)
|
Of course, since it's closed source software that they'd be releasing, how would anyone know that it was their code that was modified? Sure it would be "legally wrong", but has that ever stopped a big company?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:3, Interesting)
by Mike_K on Monday January 17, @08:29PM EST
(#86)
(User
Info) |
| No matter what interpratation you choose the GPL is probably still good. Sure some group of people could decide to create their own private version of GPLed software without legal fault, however, they are still restricted from selling their modified code.
Technically, they can't seel it. But they can sell MEMBERSHIPS to an organization which will distribute only the binaries! Every new version gets new membership (with new membership fee), you can upgrade your memberships, etc.
This technique allows for NORMAL, CLOSED SOURCE practices to take place using Open Source software!
m
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:1)
by mcrandello
(mcrandello@my-deja.com) on Monday January 17, @09:08PM EST
(#116)
(User
Info) http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=mcrandello
|
Damn, that's a good point...but it would be awfully hard to make that look like anything other than what it was (a cash grab on OSS w/o you getting the benefits of the source)...I mean would the membership be renewed on a "per-application" basis? Or would Company X actually promise a certain amount of binaries for say a years' membership to said "club"? I mean, you do have something there, but I think that anyone who would implement such a scheme would come off looking shady, and scare folks back to the original (open) sources...
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:3, Informative)
by NMerriam
(NMerriam@artboy.org) on Monday January 17, @09:38PM EST
(#141)
(User
Info) http://www.ArtBoy.org
|
But they can sell MEMBERSHIPS to an organization which will distribute only the
binaries!
Where in the GPL does it say that clubs/organizations can distribute internally without source?
There is a big difference between a club member and an corporate employee, and those differences is why this "club" idea has no basis in legal reality at all (keeping in mind the GPL is a legal contract)...
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @11:19PM EST
(#204)
|
It is interesting to note, though, that the Artistic License does allow binary-only distributions within an association. So maybe this whole brouhaha would be better labeled as a hole in the Artistic License?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:2)
by Fastolfe
(david@fastolfe.net) on Monday January 17, @10:47PM EST
(#186)
(User
Info) http://fastolfe.net/
|
All it takes is a judge saying, "The club is a sham. By selling/distributing memberships, they're just trying to hide the fact that they're really selling/distributing the program, contrary to the license."
If you can prove this, I can't think of any reason a judge would disagree with you.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:2)
by um... Lucas
(lk@caralis.com) on Tuesday January 18, @12:07AM EST
(#237)
(User
Info) http://www.caralis.com/us/lucas/
|
It's not that hard to layer value on top of the software distribution. Make it a support group, users group, etc... So long as you're banded together with a common interest and can show that, no one can really penalize you for the perks that you provide to members of your "club".
And you would need to be providing a very VALUABLE service. Not just redistributing GPLed software, because everyoen will know that they can get it for free... so if you've got something that kick ass that no ones developed yet and you're trying to circumvent the GPL, just go and choose a new license for it...
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:2)
by Fastolfe
(david@fastolfe.net) on Tuesday January 18, @01:58AM EST
(#279)
(User
Info) http://fastolfe.net/
|
Regardless, any decent court would see it for what it's worth: an attempt to redistribute the software against the terms of the license.
Plus there's a whole range of technicalities that must be dealt with. *Corporations* are legal entities, not "clubs." You would have to sign up to be a member in such a way that you would be and act as part of that corporation, keeping your interests in the software within the framework of that arrangement.
Once you begin using the software for your own personal purposes or in any way outside of the corporation's need for the software, you are either a) breach of contract; and/or b) acting *for* the company by redistributing the software outside the boundaries of the corporation (to yourself). Assuming the latter, you could still be breaching contract by doing so, which could nullify your rights to redistribute (as well as the rights of those that have received the software from you).
So really in order for something like this to be legal, the corporation would have to have a contract set up in such a way that your interest in the software remains within the boundaries and charter of the corporation. Once that ceases to be the case, either you're guilty of using the software incorrectly, or the corporation is guilty of restricting it incorrectly.
As far as I know, no "clubs" have membership agreements that set their members up as employees/agents of the host corporation, which would be required if their use of the software is to be considered "internal."
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:1)
by Kye
(marcus@NOSPAM.yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) on Monday January 17, @09:13PM EST
(#120)
(User
Info) |
First let me preface this, by saying that I've enver studied law, and could be totally wrong in terms of members of an organisation actually become part of the legal entity.
Say I modified the Linux kernel, to support really useful feature X, As an individual person, Only I cna use it. If I started an organisation or an association, and did the changes as the asociation, I could then charge membership to the association. This membership entitles people access to the binary version of the new kernel.
As the binaries arn't distributed outside of my organisation, I don't need to release code. And the GPL doesn't say what has to happen internally in my organisation.
Wether or not this is fair, that is irrelevent. I think we all can aggree on that, even most of the anti-GPL people :)
But is there any legal way for the copyright holder to terminate the licence?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @10:43PM EST
(#180)
|
Company law explicitly states that *members* of a company are separate legal entities to the company itself. In fact this is a basic underlying principle of company law. Consequently, distribution to members is distribution outside of the company, and must include source code.
Employees of a company are considered to be a part of the company *only in a tightly limited context of the work they do for the company*. If a company were to allow the employee to take the object code home outside the context of the work, that would be distribution, and must include source code.
There is no loophole here.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Its still okay (Score:1)
by Kye
(marcus@NOSPAM.yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) on Tuesday January 18, @12:48AM EST
(#257)
(User
Info) |
Thanks for the clarification. Just one question, does that cover associations too? (Are associations a legal entity at all in the US?)
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Off on the wrong foot (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @07:26PM EST
(#4)
|
Companies are not individuals and have no right as such.
The author seems to have missed on a large body of law that says otherwise.
The entire position seems based on his opinion or personal preference rather than actual juridical decisions.
I might have read more than two replies into the thread if he had bothered to offer court decisions supporting his belief that licenses can only apply towards individuals.
But what do I know, I'm just an Anonymous Coward.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Off on the wrong foot (Score:3, Insightful)
by Tackhead on Monday January 17, @07:54PM EST
(#43)
(User
Info) |
| Amen, amen, amen! Moderators, give that AC more points! This story isn't off on the wrong foot, he's off on the wrong leg!
Corporations are individuals in the eyes of the law. They can be sued. They can even be convicted of crimes. Their directors can be held personally accountable for their [i.e. the corporation's] actions.
Being an individual under the law is why corporations exist! There's a reason why you aren't on the hook to pay the bills when a company you own shares in blows up, and that reason is that the corporation is a legal entity unto itself. The corporation is responsible for paying its bills -- the shareholders aren't.
The first line of the post from Mr. Rideau says it all: "in my interpretation [ ... ] companies are not individuals and have no right as such".
While I happen to think the bugroff license is cute and witty, the fact remains that the law is not terribly interested in Mr. Rideau's gross misinterpretation of the notion of the corporation's rights as an individual.
Slashdot dropped the ball on this one. The GPL is as sound today as it was yesterday. We don't know how well it'll stand up in court, but if it's defeated, it certainly won't be because of some cockamamie "interpretation" that says corporations lack rights as individuals under the law.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Off on the wrong foot (Score:1)
by mzito
(mzito@nospam.eticomm.net) on Monday January 17, @10:14PM EST
(#166)
(User
Info) |
Well, this is true to a certain extent, but there's some more details that need to be filled in:
Corporations are individuals under the law. In his original post, Mr. Rideau uses the word "companies". There are two general types of companies: Proprietorships and Corporations. Proprietorships are the most common form of companies. The different types of proprietorships are the Sole Proprietorship, the General Partnership, and the Limited Partnership Under a proprietorship, there is no separate legal entity- the owner's possessions and assets are open to legal action. In that situation, the transfer of data from one employee to another constitutes a transfer of the so-licensed software from one individual to another. Therefore, either individual would have the right to re-distribute that software as they saw fit. Even a non-disclosure agreement would not absolve one from this responsibility, since the GPL itself says (emphasis mine):
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
So, based on this, if one is employed at a company that is a sole proprietorship (which is the most common type of company in the US) and is bound by a NDA not to release or discuss the source code to the public, they are not allowed to redistribute any of the changes back into the company, since that would be distributing the source code in violation of the above conditions.
Now, while a corporation IS its own entity under the law, there is something called "Respondeat Superior", or "the acts of the agent are the acts of the owner" (that information, and the information in general regarding rights of agency courtesy of "Small Business Advisor" pg. 446-449). If an employee of a corporation starts using GPL'ed software, and does so on company time, is the company then bound under the GPL? It depends. If the person in question either has a) a clearly stated authority to speak on behalf of the corporation (i.e. in the articles of incorporation) or b) an implied authority to do so (like you're the head of the software design department and the CTO just said, "We need you to pick a new piece of software to build"), then the corporate entity is bound by the actions of the individual.
Therefore, if a someone within the company who meets neither of the above conditions takes a piece of GPL'ed software, modifies it, and then distributes it to five other employees, s/he is bound by the GPL, NOT the company. OTOH, if someone with authority starts using a piece of software, the company is then the entity bound by the GPL.
Based on that, since Mr. Stallman said that redistribution within a company is not redistribution in terms of the GPL (we have to assume that he means a corporation, since its been demonstrated that transactions within a proprietorship constitute transactions between individuals), it is legally possible to create an organization like the one Mr. Rideau described, where upon entering the corporation you agree to not distribute internal corporate information. Since it is not redistribution according to Mr. Stallman to distribute within a corporation, then section 7 of the GPL with regards to anti-distribution and restriction thereof does not apply, Read the rest of this comment...
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Companies ARE Individuals (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @08:08PM EST
(#60)
|
Yes. The author of this 'opinion' misses the fact that according to British common and American law, corporations ARE individuals and are accorded all the rights and liabilities of individuals under law ... including the right to enter contracts, accept licenses, sue and be sued.
GPL's language is no different in this respect, and is just as safe as, any other license or contract out there.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Companies ARE Individuals (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:43AM EST
(#255)
|
Yes. The author of this 'opinion' misses the fact that according to British common and American law, corporations ARE individuals and are accorded all the rights and liabilities of individuals under law ... including the right to enter contracts, accept licenses, sue and be sued.
But they don't have rights like the 5th amendment.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
note to non-posting slashdot surfers (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @08:11PM EST
(#66)
|
don't just click the "moderate this up" button just because it already has score 2 and is at the time top of the list. This comment does NOT deserve score 4.. hell.. I don't think it deserves score 2.. this before you moderate.. read the rest of the comments.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Question? (Score:2, Interesting)
by DMuse on Monday January 17, @08:41PM EST
(#99)
(User
Info) |
| is this true in ALL countries?
The AC beat me too the punch. I don't know about *all* jurisdictions but certainly the exceptions would have to be rare. As the AC pointed out, by incorporating (call it what you want: plc, Gmbh, inc. etc.) the company is now treated as an individual. This concept dates back to 16th Century England. The owners as a whole are not held responsible, but instead the directors ARE personally responsible. (Separations of Ownership and Management)
Also note that in Canada and US it is not always the federal government that has provisions for corporations but the state/province that recognizes corporations as well. I worked for a company in Silicon Valley that was registered in Nevada because their laws suited the owners better, even though they had no intention of doing business in Nevada.
The original thread worries itself about the actions of the employees. I'll leave the cases of renegade employees up to the courts but in general, most employees (especially in high tech) are well educated on the concept of proprietary information and that proprietary information MUST remain proprietary. But obviously leaks happen.
In general I would say the Mr. Rideau doesn't have a clue. Corporations are individual and are accountable. There are also very strict rules regulating employees acting in a capacity as agents of a company.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Question? (Score:1)
by eric.t.f.bat
(bat@atdot.dotat.org) on Monday January 17, @10:13PM EST
(#165)
(User
Info) |
Regarding companies being considered individuals in the eyes of the law:
It's certainly true in Australia, so it's probably also true in Britain and the Commonwealth, South Africa, Canada, the USA and India. I can't speak for non-english-speaking countries.
Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant. But my mother is, and I've learnt at her knee, and written a lot of software with what I learned.
: Fruitbat :
I have discovered a truly remarkable .sig block which this margin is too small to conta |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
How corporations became "people" (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @08:59PM EST
(#110)
|
Here is an excellant essay on the developement of corporations as legal fictions into sovereign entities with all the power of an individual but none of the liability. This is the reason the GPL "might" be invalidated. If it is then perhaps the Open Source community can work to appeal the court decision which gave corporations this kind of power which should only belong to individuals.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Under the law, corps are considered individuals (Score:2, Interesting)
by CurtisLeeFulton
(curtisf@sensenet.000uoregon000.edu) on Monday January 17, @08:59PM EST
(#112)
(User
Info) http://linuxdocumentary.uoregon.edu
|
| The recent fear mongering has a premise that is idealogical: only individuals can be individuals.
Legally, this is incorrect. In order for the described exploit to work, those wishing to use the proprietary code would have to encorporate, which is not a simple feat.
A vague "organization" would not have the legal standing to use the described exploit. Furthermore, any use of the proprietary code outside of the agrigate could be considered illegal, as it is being used outside the corporation.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Interesting Tidbit (OT) (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:13PM EST
(#121)
|
IIRC RTmark actually has a special project based on this premise (that corporations == individuals) where they are giving money away to anyone who can succesfully MARRY a corporation. Just thought I'd point that out to all you single fellows out there ;)
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Corporations are *people* under the law (Score:3, Informative)
by Jamie Zawinski
(jwz@jwz.org) on Monday January 17, @09:46PM EST
(#146)
(User
Info) http://www.jwz.org/
|
AC wrote:
Companies are not individuals and have no right as such. The author seems to
have missed on a large body of law that says otherwise.
Sadly, this is untrue. Someone else pointed this out earlier but it bears repeating: in the United States, a corporation is a "natural person" under the law, entitled to all the same rights as people who happen to be made of meat.
This great Adbusters article goes into a lot of detail of the history of corporations and how we ended up in this mess. From the article:
Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and
remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of
American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a
dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private
corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and
therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly,
corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed
only by the people, including the right to free speech.
This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as
private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources,
corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private
citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more
vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a
single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that
all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates
-- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court
Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be
supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of
the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic
government.
Adbusters is wonderful, you should subscribe.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporations are *people* under the law (Score:1)
by Wizzu on Monday January 17, @10:27PM EST
(#172)
(User
Info) |
I think you misunderstood the post. The first sentence, "Companies are not individuals and have no rights as such." was in italics, and that was because it was quoted, not for emphasis. I assume it was quoted from somewhere in the discussion thread that was linked to this /. article. The AC's original text started with the second sentence that you quoted.
The original AC post was saying exactly what you did in yours as well, that the first sentence is not true. That's also why it got moderated up.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporations are *people* under the law (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @10:52PM EST
(#194)
|
| a corporation is a "natural person" under the law
A corporation is a "person" under the law. A "natural person" is a biological person - that phrase specifically excludes corporations.
The word "company" is a synonym for "corporation" - a business that is not incorporated is not a company, despite common misuse of the word.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporations are *people* under the law (Score:1)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com) on Monday January 17, @10:53PM EST
(#195)
(User
Info) |
Isn't it absurd. Corporations have no soul, are immortal, and are designed to avoid personal responsibility and yet they have rights.
I think that if a corporation has first amendment rights it can make a case for second amendment rights. Can you see it. MS arms itself to fend off the DOJ thereby declaring war against the US. I would love to see that just so the supreme court can see the absurdity of their ruling.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Off on the wrong foot (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @10:02PM EST
(#159)
|
Although I'm not an American and cannot attest to having read the constitution, from the various left wing, commy bastard, redder than red books I've read, the point is put forth that in the constitution corporations are not extended any rights that are given to citizens; the idea of corporations as such today was essentially not considered by the original framers.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Off on the wrong foot (Score:1)
by sgml4kids on Monday January 17, @10:23PM EST
(#171)
(User
Info) |
Companies are not individuals and have no right as such.
There is an absurd body of USA case law (including Supreme Court decisions) that uphold the view that corporations are "manufactured" persons. They have rights, can enter into legal agreements, etc. Although corporations cannot vote in elections, the USA congress has happily implemented a number of workarounds to help large companies voice their "opinions". What infuriates many people is that while corporations enjoy many of the rights "real" people have, they aren't subject to many of the responsibilities of citizenship. No corporation for example can be drafted for military service or jury duty. The law is quite plain if a person is convicted of stealing or manslaughter or libel. The law is considerably shakier when it comes to punishing a company that commits these crimes.
In Canada, we recently has an insane ruling from the Supreme Court which declared that a Federal ban on alcohol advertising was unconstitutional because it infringed Freedom of Expression as guaranteed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, it infringed the alcohol and liquor companies' freedom to express themselves. Now that companies can express themselves, perhaps they will fight for their right to vote and practise the religion of their shareholders. Maybe I'll live to see the day when companies can marry.
Getting back to the "loophole" mentioned in the discussion thread. If a company engages a contractor or employee to augment GPL'd software, and the company doesn't distribute that software I don't see anything that gives the employee the right to distribute it. First, the employee is acting as an agent for the corporation -- the corporation isn't licensing its augmented code to the developer. Ie. the corporation isn't "distributing" the source because the agent is part of the corporation.
Also consider what happens if the code is unstable or unsafe for widespread usage. I think the employee or contractor would be liable for the damage such code would entail.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Off on the wrong foot (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @03:15AM EST
(#299)
|
Maybe I'll live to see the day when companies can marry.
I think AOL and Time-Warner just got married. Now we can all look out for child-spinnoffs.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Lots of assumptions! (or, "NO NO NO!!!") (Score:2)
by Nimmy
(spam@nimlabs.org) on Tuesday January 18, @01:15AM EST
(#264)
(User
Info) http://www.nimlabs.org
|
Companies are not individuals and have no right as such. The author seems to have missed on a large body of law that says otherwise.
I'm afraid it is YOU who as made an assumption. What you meant to say was "...have missed a large body of US law..."
Honestly, not everyone lives in the US. I do, and it appears you do too. But Fare doesn't. And nor do many corperations which might wish to subvert the GPL. We have copyright treaties with other countries, but if something a buisness practice is legal there, there is nothing we can do about it! This is the formost problem for law enforcement on the internet. Its (whatever it is) legal SOMEWHERE. And there aint a thing you can do about it except embargo and block traffic. And you know traffic blocking doesnt work.
--Nick
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Um...this is news? (Score:1)
by Wolfkin
(wolfkin@freedomspace.net) on Monday January 17, @07:26PM EST
(#5)
(User
Info) http://www.freedomspace.net
|
I was certainly under the impression before that the GPL granted each individual the rights to reproduce the covered material. This was the big question when Corel tried to violate the GPL by insisting that beta-testers were not really covered, wasn't it?
On a visible but distant shore, a new image of man;
The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.-- Johnny Clegg. |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Um...this is news? (Score:1)
by Ralph Wiggam
(barry@no-meat-in-a-can.summex.com) on Monday January 17, @08:13PM EST
(#70)
(User
Info) http://www.redmeat.com
|
I remember the Corel incident as mostly being about the definition of "beta". People freaked out and imagined a company charging people for GPLed software and hiding behind, "It's only a beta, we don't have to release the code". When it was pointed out to the suits at Corel, they were quick to open up the beta, not wanting to piss off a community they were trying to become a part of.
This "hole" is based on factually wrong legal foundation and is a publicity ploy.
-B
This is my sig...or something |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Release the source! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @07:27PM EST
(#6)
|
Mark this comment down...
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
What goes around comes around.. (Score:3, Insightful)
by lapdog
(davids@labs.spamless.net) on Monday January 17, @07:28PM EST
(#8)
(User
Info) http://www.allpurposegeeks.com
|
If a company wants to keep the source a secret, my problem is not that they violate the GPL by doing so. Their maintentance, bugfixes, etc. become their problem and less of the communities.
What bugs me is the potential for an employee to be fired for distributing this source back to the community. Now it becomes his argument that the GPL grants him the right to do this, and they should not have fired him.
So now the company is sued for violating the GPL by that individual. The GPL still holds. And the whole mess just becomes a lesson that violating the GPL is a bad idea.
Dave
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:What goes around comes around.. (Score:1)
by weezel
(jeremy@weezel.com) on Monday January 17, @07:42PM EST
(#39)
(User
Info) |
The GPL doesn't allow an employee to take the work he has done on company time and distribute it for free. The GPL doesn't require anyone to distribute anything, it just specifies the terms that you are allowed to distribute under (you must include source with binary modifications, etc).
IANAL but I don't believe the company is "distributing" the software to its employees, the employees are using the software as an agent of the company.
EOF
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:What goes around comes around.. (Score:3, Insightful)
by Robert S Gormley
(rgormley@expert.com.au) on Monday January 17, @08:08PM EST
(#61)
(User
Info) http://www.obsidian.darker.net/
|
True, but it could also become his employer's argument that his employment contract was to do what was in their best interest etc etc (the rule that states that a contract to do something illegal is null and void - withold changes - is invalid in this case as it is not illegal), and on that point they could be said to have reasonable grounds.
My comments more accuratebly labelled as Inciteful than Insightful :) |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:What goes around comes around.. (Score:1)
by incubus on Monday January 17, @08:19PM EST
(#75)
(User
Info) |
Actually the person would be suing for wrongfull termination or something like that... in this case, the company only violates the GPL if *it* distributes the modified binaries without the source.
An entity can only violate the GPL by distributing binaries to GPL'd software without source code. Firing someone for distributing anything doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Pedantic nitpick... (Score:1)
by Arandir
(arandir-at-meer-dot-net) on Monday January 17, @08:51PM EST
(#106)
(User
Info) http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
|
"An entity can only violate the GPL by distributing binaries to GPL'd software without source code."
If only that were true! But alas, one can run afoul of the GPL in a myriad of subtle ways. Like adding restrictions. Like removing restrictions away. Like linking the binary to a non-GPL library. Like including non-GPL code in the source tree. Like adding a frontend to apt or distributing KDE.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Pedantic nitpick... (Score:1)
by Kye
(marcus@NOSPAM.yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) on Monday January 17, @09:20PM EST
(#126)
(User
Info) |
Wouldn't Adding a non-GPLed library or non-gpl source code in the tree be a violation of the _Non_ GPLed code's license (depending on how open or not the other license is)
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Pedantic nitpick... (Score:2)
by Arandir
(arandir-at-meer-dot-net) on Monday January 17, @11:33PM EST
(#211)
(User
Info) http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
|
Not every license has clauses limiting their contact with other licensed stuff, and you're right that the GPL is not the only one that does this (most don't though).
However I was replying to the statement that the GPL only kicks in when binaries are distributed. If the GPL were only there to keep the source code around, it wouldn't need pages of legalese to do that. Obviously there are a few more rules and requirements included.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Pedantic nitpick...: Clauses may not be needed. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @02:30AM EST
(#287)
|
| Re: "Not every license has clauses limiting their contact with other licensed stuff, and you're right that the GPL is not the only one that does this (most don't though)."
Theoretically, such clauses aren't usually needed. Copyright law itself does the limiting. If a copyright holder doesn't give you explicit rights (in the license) to change his license, you don't get to change how he has licensed the code to which you share copyright with him after you modify his code. Almost all licenses require you to share copyright with the original holder on derivatives. Nothing gives anybody license to use the work in which he shares copyright ownership, except the original license (unless, of course, he explicitly allows different licensing in the original license or in a new license).
Few people (even licensors) recognize this, so your statement is all too commonly seen. Someone is going to have to be sued big-time before this changes, but it seems that people who care and can afford lawyers don't use these licenses anyway.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:What goes around comes around.. (Score:1)
by raytracer on Monday January 17, @08:29PM EST
(#87)
(User
Info) |
| What bugs me is the potential for an employee to be fired for distributing this source back to the community. Now it becomes his argument that the GPL grants him
the right to do this, and they should not have fired him.
Unfortunately, the work done by an employee as part of his work for hist employer doesn't typically belong to him. It is therefore not within his rights to give that labor away. It's a violation of the contract that the programmer enters as part of drawing a paycheck.
Ultimately, the GPL cannot require that a person or corporation distribute anything. I doubt any enforceable license could be constructed that compels a user to do so. If it could, it would seem to be much a much WORSE situation than currently exists for Free Software, as proprietary companies could presumably use the same mechanism to ensure that YOU use the software that you buy in precisely the way that THEY dictate.
The bugroff license is a darned fine idea, and well motivated. If the software in question were really free instead of just GPL-brand free , we could rely on things like simple practicality to enforce software freedom: it would simply not generally be in any companies best interest to significantly fork from the freely available versions. It would also allow them to donate parts of their efforts back into free software projects without necessarily compelling them to donate ALL of their work to such a project.
None of this is new. I suspect it will only be resolved in a court of law when a company begins to think that the payoff might be great enough to risk a legal fight. Given the high valuation of Linux based properties on the NASDAQ, it might not be that far off.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Companies as individuals (Score:2, Insightful)
by Afterimage
(nwallsATismediaDOTorg) on Monday January 17, @07:29PM EST
(#11)
(User
Info) http://ismedia.org
|
| I've understood companies to be "individual" in the following sense. All of this applies to coporations (which limits human liability)
1. companies pay taxes.
2. companies can be sued.
3. companies can sue.
4. companies can enter into contracts.
5. companies can have loans.
6. companies can issue loans.
So, I guess I need some further explanation of the loophole. The only way I can see it is if a limited partnership (not sole-proprietor) company (not incorporated) did this. Then, there would be no "individual" since it would cover a group that could not be legally assumed to be either humanly or legally individual.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed! |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Companies as individuals (Score:2, Interesting)
by catfood on Monday January 17, @07:38PM EST
(#30)
(User
Info) http://schumann.cleveland.oh.us
|
So, I guess I need some further explanation of the loophole. The only way I can see it is if a limited partnership (not sole-proprietor) company (not incorporated) did this. Then, there would be no "individual" since it would cover a group that could not be legally assumed to be either humanly or legally individual.
Right, and even in that case a partnership does not have a separate legal existence. The only "persons" that exist in law are natural humans and corporations. Partnerships are just combinations of "persons"... they don't have any rights in law.
IANAL, but I'm 3-1 in pro se cases.
Bottom line, I'm with you. I don't see what the original poster's point is. Corporations have exactly the same rights under GPL as individuals do. So what?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Companies as individuals (Score:1)
by plague3106
(ajj3085@rit.edu.no.spam) on Monday January 17, @09:25PM EST
(#131)
(User
Info) |
Right, and even in that case a partnership does not have a separate legal existence
Actually, it does. A sole-propiorship (forgive my spelling) or parnership does "exist." that is, if the comapny were to go belly up, the owners of the company would be liable to pay the bills, even being forced to sell their house. Obviously this is a strong reason to incorporate.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Companies as individuals (Score:1)
by gatekeeper-eu on Monday January 17, @11:38PM EST
(#215)
(User
Info) |
I beg to differ! In (UK Law - poss similar in the english speaking world) partnerships the partners are "jointly and severally" liable and unlike corporations have NO limites to their liability. Each partner is treated in law as an 'individual' but it is usually the Senior Partner to whom legal matters are addressed.
Senior Partner (Retd) ****** ***** Associates.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Companies as individuals (Score:1)
by Afterimage
(nwallsATismediaDOTorg) on Monday January 17, @11:56PM EST
(#228)
(User
Info) http://ismedia.org
|
| Yes and no. I believe it exists, but only as extentions of the sole-proprietor. Consider the "Ficticious Business Statement" or "Doing Business As" adverts in legal classifieds. By and large, what this does is serve notice to the public at large (by legal requirement) that Business X is actually Joe Smith dba Business X, not Business X (Inc.).
So in a sense, a non-incorporated partnership or sole-proprietorship do not exist. Consider, if a sole-proprietor dies, the business dies with her. Partnerships must be restructured if one or more partners buys out others, or leaves. A corporation can survive in the total absense of any living person, so long as the bills are paid.
You are absolutely correct about liability, however.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed! |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Spirit of GPL (Score:1)
by 1DeepThought
(deepthought@nospam.linuxstart.com) on Monday January 17, @07:30PM EST
(#14)
(User
Info) |
| I think most people understand the spirit of GPL and will abide by it regardless of what they can actually do. I guess we can only hope this will happen. If anyone tries to exploit this then I believe they will be boycotted by the majority of people provided those of us who understand what this means inform others. Even though it may sound an onerous task, educating newbies and non technical users is vital in fighting the posibilities this represents.
However as I stated at the begining of this rant I do not believe this will be widely exploited. That said I am far from an expert on this issue.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to" - I can't remember
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Spirit of GPL (Score:1)
by gatekeeper-eu on Monday January 17, @11:55PM EST
(#227)
(User
Info) |
I suspect that if push came to shove Judges would allow considerable leeway in arguments presented by representatives of GPL. It is after all "in the public interest" and could possibly be argued "for the greater good". In this context Judges may ask "what was the intestion of the GPL".
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
I've stolen tons of GPL Code (Score:0, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @07:30PM EST
(#15)
|
I'm posting anonymously because I work for the third biggest software firm worldwide. Often times when I need to write something new I go and look in my library of copyleft'ed re-distributable source code. If I find something then I take it and put it in my own projects without giving credit or even copying over the COPYING file. My own project is now nearing completion and it will be greater than any GPL'ed software ever made. I'm going to be filthy rich because I'm going to make it copyrighted and undistributable.
There are a couple places I could use help tho. If you are also interested in building a new copyrighted undistributable Natalie Portman naked and petrified then mail me.
Woops!! I just poured hot grits on my copyrighted undistributable source code@!@!
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Score him a troll, but a troll with a point! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @10:21PM EST
(#169)
|
| Yes, the above is a troll, but he does have a point. What he describes probably does happen, and a lot. Two questions arise:
(1) How can the GPL-violating incorporation of code into proprietary software be detected? and
(2) If it is detected, what is the proper response assuming the company denies wrongdoing (which they always do)?
Do we just sit idly by, perhaps secure in the knoweledge that these people will "get theirs" in the afterlife in "GNU Hell"? Or do we act to protect our code?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
I think this is a concern (Score:1)
by Elyas on Monday January 17, @07:31PM EST
(#18)
(User
Info) |
You aren't neccessarily selling the "software", you could be selling the ability to join "the group", one priviledge of which is access to the software. With a little work, this kind of arrangement could probably be worded into a EULA, where you agree to join the group by purchasing, etc. This could allow companies to in effect charge for products that use GPL code, and not release their modifications, if I understand the arguments correctly
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:I think this is a concern(Probably not) (Score:1)
by Samus
(samus@one.net) on Monday January 17, @08:45PM EST
(#102)
(User
Info) |
A EULA is an End User License Agreement. Typically these are not sent out with internal software apps in companies that I have seen. Now in order for me to be considered as part of the single legal entity of a corporation I have to have some kind of employment agreement. I can't see this as being a prefferable condition for companies. It just wouldn't look good on the books not to mention all the people going out saying they represent Microsoft b/c they paid to be in the club. Maybe its possible but I don't think it is desirable for a company to want to operate like this. I for one would sell any shares I had in them.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
What it seems to me.... (Score:1)
by jmauro
(jmauro@ukans.edu) on Monday January 17, @07:33PM EST
(#20)
(User
Info) http://eagle.cc.ukans.edu/~jmauro
|
It seems to be saying that because a company is not a person, then it cannot be bound by the license. That is just bull. An incorporated company is legally a person and can enter the same agreements as a individual. Laws bound companies that sign contracts or agree to licenses the same what that they bound them to the individual. If it is not incorporated, then the individual who gets the license is bound by its terms and all the individuals who work for that company. That is my 2 cents anyway.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
This guy is a troll! (Score:5, Insightful)
by Dirtside
(matt@SPAMTASTIC.waggoner.com) on Monday January 17, @07:34PM EST
(#22)
(User
Info) http://matt dot waggoner dot com
|
| First of all, the slashdot user who submitted the story is the same one who's posting this so-called "hole" on the mailing list to begin with. Go read his first message, then Stallman's reply, then his next message, then Stallman's next reply. There's no hole in the GPL; or if there is, then this isn't it. This guy seems to just be trying to stir up controversy so that he can get mentioned on Slashdot, or maybe get a movie contract, or something.
And boo to Slashdot for posting this ridiculous story without actually reading the links first. There's been far too much of that lately, as the comments keep seeming to indicate...
--- Dirtside | "Spirituality" is the irrational belief in the supernatural
without the baggage of organized religion. Or so the aliens told me. |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
no kidding! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @08:00PM EST
(#51)
|
I'm disgusted that this was posted here at all. The submitter is dead wrong. He's already wasted RMS's time, and now he's trying to waste ours.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This guy is a troll! (Score:3, Interesting)
by um... Lucas
(lk@caralis.com) on Monday January 17, @08:24PM EST
(#81)
(User
Info) http://www.caralis.com/us/lucas/
|
I'm trying to figure out if he brought this up due to the discussion about slashdot's code, or the NSA contracting with a company to secure Linux. Either way, I think it is somehting that needs to be cleared up... And definetly, someone out there needs to follow the GPL to the letter yet violate it in some way, so as to set a legal precedent.
Right now the GPL seems completely theoretical. But so far, everyone's respected it enough to not have to actually see if it's worth the paper it's printed on.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This guy is a troll! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:29PM EST
(#134)
|
This guy seems to just be trying to stir up controversy so that he can get mentioned on slashdot, or maybe get a movie contract, or something.
Posting as an AC for obvious reasons, I have done that. I didn't get a movie contract but I did get a heavily responded to item on Slashdot and an article in Byte Magazine. :)
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This guy is a troll! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:41PM EST
(#144)
|
| tonight Jonny, your bedtime story is The little boy who cried troll.
Ahh, but mom!! we just read the little boy who cried FUD last night, can't we read something else?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:This guy is a troll! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @10:20PM EST
(#168)
|
Bingo! Ferchristsakes. Is that all it takes these days to get a headline on Slashdot? I create my own bullshit controversy, report it myself, and Whamo(tm), instant open source DemiGod.
The whole argument is being put forward by someone who, ( it should be obvious if you actually follow the thread), has a particular wingnut agenda that he's pursueing *despite* being corrected in his grossly ignorant opinion. This should be most evident in his statement that he isn't just discussing the law but "the law as it should be."
His primary issue isn't even the GPL but rather that if someone hires him to do work that work becomes the property of his employer, not his, and that's just evil and his whole premise is based on this. I'm sorry, but if I hire someone to build me a deck the deck is mine. If I hire someone to write me code, the code is mine. It's the same damn thing. The employee is an *agent* of the employer. The company is the legal entity where license issues are concerned. If this were not the case *every* contract and license with *every* company would be "unenforcable." It's basic business law.
This whole thing dosn't deserve the bandwidth.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Nebulous Interpretations? (Score:1)
by kingmundi on Monday January 17, @07:34PM EST
(#23)
(User
Info) |
One of the stories I have read about RMS is about how he had a piece of software that managed a printer he used and the software had a bug. He wanted to fix the bug but was unable to because the software was under a restrictive liscense. This was one of the motivations for making the GPL. Perhaps in the scenario portrayed by Francois-Rene Rideau , RMS is of the opinion that because the software is being used for internal use only, it will not affect the world's ability to use the software. As soon as the company attempts to use the software in the world market it comes under the terms of the GPL and it has to be released.
What I am wondering is...
Could a company make a liscense stating that you are joining an association by using their software? And that by agreeing to the liscence you are are agreeing to not release the software to the world?
I am wondering if the definition of an association is a nebulous area.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Nebulous Interpretations? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:02PM EST
(#113)
|
I don't think you could, because, IIRC, licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law, and copyright law protects the GPL. Conflicting licenses nullify all of them.
IIRC.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Nebulous Interpretations? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:26PM EST
(#132)
|
Not without buying out or merging with all of their customers. (Not exactly a money-making method there.)
The closest you could come is to hire your customers as 'contract employees'. At which point you have to pay them, handle tax-deductions from payroll, provide workspace, and become responsible for all that other employer-employee relationship junk.
On the other side of the fence, the code being added to a GPL project is GPLed as well, so there really wouldn't be anything (legally speaking) to prevent an employee from going home, getting the same base-source as he has at work and making the same changes in his spare time.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Nebulous Interpretations? (Score:1)
by ivan_13013
(stingray_NO@SPAM_2xtreme.net) on Tuesday January 18, @02:04AM EST
(#283)
(User
Info) |
In order to avoid "distributing" the software but still giving copies out, you'd have to make each person who had a copy an employee or contractor of the corporation in question. The cost of doing this would be immense (paperwork, taxes, etc).
For instance, in order for any employee of a private company to use any "company software" on their home computer, the company would have to "distribute" and [sub]license it to them (if permitted to do so). IANAL so I am not sure if the same applies for a person acting as the agent for a corporation.
-=Ivan |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Corporations (Score:2)
by Aleatoric
(rsanders@webzone.net) on Monday January 17, @07:35PM EST
(#24)
(User
Info) |
In the US, at least, corporations have legal status as an individual entity, and are treated as an individual with regards to most legal issues. Although I am not familiar with all the legal subleties involved, it is my understanding that a corporation, at least, can be treated as an individual concerning the GPL.
There might be some issues with non corporations, but my knowledge of their legal status is slight.
The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lighted. - Plutarch
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Who cares about the license... steal it anyway (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @07:35PM EST
(#25)
|
If the final result is closed source software anyway, why would anyone NOT steal the GPL code? No one will ever catch you (closed source, right?). You'll finish your work sooner. You're not hurting the original author, because they gave their shit away in the first place. Basically, stealing GPL code is the best solution to most common business problems. Who gives a shit about licenses?
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Who cares about the license... steal it anyway (Score:1)
by ocie
(ocie@paracel.com) on Monday January 17, @09:30PM EST
(#135)
(User
Info) |
That's a strong argument for reverse engineering. If I could prove that company XYZ's new spreadsheet is just emacs running spreadsheet mode... Then again, is there a good metric of program similarity? It seems like all spreadsheets would "look the same" from a certain level of detail because, well, they are all spreadsheets.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Who cares about the license... steal it anyway (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @01:40AM EST
(#274)
|
> If the final result is closed source software anyway, why would anyone NOT steal the GPL code?
For the same reasons companies like Whistle donate code back to FreeBSD despite the fact they sell proprietary versions of FreeBSD-- the amount of effort it would take them to maintain a separate "secret" tree apart from the main source is not worth it.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Don't panic (Score:4, Informative)
by JoeBuck
(jbuck at welsh-buck dot org) on Monday January 17, @07:35PM EST
(#26)
(User
Info) http://www.welsh-buck.org/jbuck/
|
The idea is that someone creates an organization,
and then requires everyone to be in the organization as a condition for software distribution. Then the modified GPLed program
is only distributed to club members, and all the
club members agree to only distribute the program
within the club. In a sense, the Trillian project
(which is porting the GNU tools and Linux to
the IA64 architecture, which is still under
nondisclosure agreements) is such a club.
So, does the fact that this can be done break the
GPL protections? No, because it doesn't get
around the requirement to provide sources to
everyone who gets binaries. Attempts to do this
kind of thing for a different reason (e.g.
charge everyone big bucks for being in the club
and forbid them from sharing information with
outsiders)
may
run afoul of antitrust provisions in the US and
the EU (forcing people to be in a club before
you do business with them may not be legal,
depending on the circumstances).
RMS often points out that the GPL (and other
licenses) shouldn't be written, or read, as if
they represent the whole of the law. Just
because the GPL doesn't exclude some possibility
doesn't mean that it is legal. It may be
illegal for another reason.
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Don't Panic (Score:1)
by Faré on Monday January 17, @08:07PM EST
(#58)
(User
Info) http://fare.tunes.org/
|
| The whole point is that if the license is understood as collective,
then anything done with the software
is internal copy and internal use, not external distribution.
Hence, restrictions on distribution do not apply.
In particular, you don't need distribute source,
since you don't distribute binaries.
Interestingly, you don't need put your modifications under the GPL either,
since you don't distribute them.
Thus, a positive side-effect of such hole
is that you may freely mix free and proprietary software code from a range of otherwise incompatible licenses,
as long as you don't "distribute"
your code outside of your world-wide association.
In other words, if you're member of the
WWBA (World-Wide Bugroff Association),
then you can freely mix and match most free
software, as if it were under the
bugroff license.
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernethics |
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Don't Panic (Score:2)
by NMerriam
(NMerriam@artboy.org) on Monday January 17, @09:31PM EST
(#137)
(User
Info) http://www.ArtBoy.org
|
"Organizations" don't have any speacial status that prevents them from being held to the GNU license for distribution. Corporations would, as they are legally the liscensing entity, so if Bob in IS gives Mary in accounting an update of the internal version of a GNU app, it's the same as Bob copying his customized version from one home computer to another -- totally kosher, as we're talking about a legal individual.
You seem to be saying that any "organization" could use this to their advantage, but being an "organization" doesn't make one a Corporation (a legal individual entity). Your church group is not a legal entity (although the church is), so if the group sets fire to a warehouse or distibutes GNU software without source, the individual members will be legally accountable.
Being an "organization" is nothing different than being in the same room as other people -- it gives no special legal privleges or responsibilities. Being a Corporation has many responsibilities (corporate taxes for one!).
If someone wants to make a "club" that involves incorporating and hiring as employees every person they want to distribute GPL software to without source, then I guess you're right -- that corporation will be the biggest company in history just to avoid doing something that doesn't cost them any money in the first place.
Seriously, OVERREACTION ALERT!!!...
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Re:Don't panic (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, @09:55PM EST
(#153)
|
The idea is that someone creates an organization, and then requires
everyone to be in the organization as a condition for software
distribution. Then the modified GPLed program is only distributed to
club members, and all the club members agree to only distribute the
program within the club. In a sense, the Trillian project (which is
porting the GNU tools and Linux to the IA64 architecture, which is
still under nondisclosure agreements) is such a club.
So, does the fact that this can be done break the GPL protections? No,
because it doesn't get around the requirement to provide sources to
everyone who gets binaries.
How's that? If the Trillian people decided that everyone would have to use their version of gcc by pasting text into an HTML form and hitting 'submit' and then having the resultant .o file mailed to them, they would not be required to release the sources to their gcc modifications since they would not be releasing their gcc mods at all! They would be making their software _available for use_ (in some nebulous sense), but is that the same thing as _distributing_ the software? I don't think so - after all, this hypothetical 'Trillian IA64 compiling service' could have been done by hand by someone with a table of opcodes and a lot of free time |->. The software is being used (maybe) to perform the service, but it is the service and not the software which is being sold/distributed.
Attempts to do this kind of thing for a
different reason (e.g. charge everyone big bucks for being in the club
and forbid them from sharing information with outsiders) may run afoul
of antitrust provisions in the US and the EU (forcing people to be in
a club before you do business with them may not be legal, depending on
the circumstances).
This one is also broken. If you only allow users of your software to execute it remotely, that by itself should cover your ass legally. You won't have to play any exclusionary games with your customer base, and therefore you will not have to chance running afoul of antitrust laws.
It now appears that all you have to do to sell proprietary modifications to GPLed code without ever having to release the sources to your changes is to sell your software as a service, and this is going to happen to most software anyway over the next 5 years or so as the Internet becomes ubiquitous. You'll sell someone a "word processor service" which is just an XUL interface definition and some TCP glue, and all of the guts of the program itself will consist of a set of binary modules held on your server which use CORBA to communicate with the front end. Most software other than low-level OS code is vulnerable to this exploit.
Jon
|
| [ Reply to This
| Parent
] |
|
Closed distribution (Score:1)
by Blue_Fox on Tuesday January 18, @12:02AM EST
(#231)
(User
Info) |
| The idea of a restricted distributiion club in fact, it does violate the underlying principles of the GPL, which is that you may not distribute modified GPL software with any restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL.
Free software does not equal $0.00 in the copyleft sense, nor is the GPL simply about providing source code with binaries. Copyleft is about protecting every user's right to have the freedom to copy and modify the program as they see wish, providing they agree to distribute the program with the same rights they had.
This is more explicitly stated in the preamble to the GPL: "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights."Based on this idea, even a |
|
|
Hole in GNU GPL?