Advertisement
Advanced thin client solution for Linux, based on Open Source. Mix Windows and Linux applications on the same desktop. V
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Single-company free software
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 2:24 UTC (Tue) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)Parent article: Single-company free software
The current version of InnoDB is licensed under the GPL, and Oracle cannot take that away.
According to this Wikipedia article, there are genuine concerns about the revocability of the GPL that, like most aspects of the GPL, have not been tested in court in any jurisdiction.
(Log in to post comments)
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 5:29 UTC (Tue) by szoth (subscriber, #14825) [Link]
Do you think its possible that the people who think that public domain isa better way to distribute source code than under the GPL might have a little more influence on that wikipedia article that other folks?
The article seems to be refering to the legality of shrink wrap lisences. If it's a problem for the GPL it would be a problem for all kinds of other licenses too.
As for the GPL not being tested, that's some popular FUD your peddling. Even if it were true it would still be FUD, but it is more fiction that fact. To your credit you say that it is _mostly_ untested, a subjective statement and impossible to refute. However I will claim that the GPL is _mostly_ tested:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 15:59 UTC (Tue) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
Geez, don't get so defensive, this isn't Slashdot.
I specifically linked to the article where the information came from so that everyone could draw their own conclusions as to the accuracy and bias of the source. I don't put a lot of stock in the journalistic quality of Wikipedia material, so I'm not going to take anything written there as fact without verifying it first, and I don't expect anybody else to.
I stand by the claim that the GPL is mostly untested, although I don't mean "tested" in the FUD sense. The GPL is generally considered to be a valid, well thought-out license, and nearly all of the code I write is released under the GPL or LGPL because I have faith in the legal soundness of those licenses. However, the interpretation of many of the terms in the GPL is still unclear.
To take a well-worn example, there is considerable controversy over where the line is drawn regarding dynamic linking of GPL code to closed code, particularly with regard to the Linux kernel. When proprietary software companies find an unanswered question regarding their own license, they promptly revise their license terms to clarify their intentions. However, since there is such a large body of code that will forever be licensed under the GPLv2, it is up to the courts to resolve ambiguities in the license, and that doesn't seem to happen very often.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 13, 2005 6:40 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]
To take a well-worn example, there is considerable controversy over where the line is drawn regarding dynamic linking of GPL code to closed code, particularly with regard to the Linux kernel.Yeah, that example is worn, allthough not well-worn. I've debunked it before, guess I'll do so again;
You are correct that it is not always 100% clear what exactly constitutes a "derived work", for example, in the case of the Linux kernel there's some disagreement as to if a kernel-module is a derived work of the kernel or not.
However, this confusion has absolutely --zero-- to do with the GPL, but is instead a general problem with copyright.
"derived work" is defined in law, and license-writers are not free to redefine it. Or put another way: if they redefined it, that redefinition would carry no weight anyway, what matters is what is, in the eyes of the law, a derived work.
If I write my own "EPL" (Eivinds Public License) in which I state that all software running on the same computer as my software is to be considered "derived" and must be released under the EPL, that would never stand up in court. If the law considers that non-derived (and that's a fair bet) there's nothing I can write to change that -- I'm not the lawmaker in any country.
Oposite, writing that I consider something *not* to be derived (even though legally it may be) will also not change the meaning of derived work. It migth however be interpreted as a permission from me to do so. (In other words I say: "I don't consider loadable modules derived from my work", the court may hear that as: "I permit loadable modules with other licenses")
Yes, it's sometimes unclear what exactly constitutes a "derived work", this is however fully a unclarity in the law, and nothing that *any* license can change.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 13, 2005 15:24 UTC (Thu) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
Thank you, that is a much better explanation regarding the binary module debate than I could have managed. This particular area of confusion effectively illustrates why we desparately need more case law to shape the legal framework we've created for open source development. As you've pointed out, these issues arise not just from ambiguities in the GPL, but from ambiguities in copyright law that affect us more than commercial developers who rely instead on contract law to enforce their software licenses. Again, until we see more court cases, we can't be sure about a lot of the "common knowledge" surrounding open source software.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 16:37 UTC (Tue) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link]
The GPL is not a shrink-wrap license, and it is unlike almost any other commercial software license. The GPL grants you extra rights you do not normally have. If you don't agree to the GPL, you don't have the extra rights. Most licenses, including shrink-wrapped EULAs, take away rights you normally have. The difference between the two is fundamental.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 14, 2005 0:49 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
If you don't agree to the GPL, you don't have the extra rights.Small technical correction: GPL is not a contract (aka agreement), ergo, there's nothing to agree to. What you mean is that if you don't perform the conditions of the GPL, you don't have the extra rights.
The difference is one of timing: in a contract, you agree to it and then can be forced to perform (by the person with whom you agreed) at a later date. With a license condition, you perform the condition, and then you have the license. You have no future commitment. There's nothing to breach.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 17:12 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]
I like Wikipedia as much as the next person, but just because it says something doesn't make it true. I have not actually read the article. If I did I'd feel obligated to fix it which I just don't have the time to do ATM. Most licenses have not been tested in court in any jurisdiction. There just isn't any credible reason to believe in the ability for a pure license to be revoked outside of any terms embodied in that license (the GPL in fact automatically revokes itself in certain conditions). The GPL is a promise from the copyright holder to the recipient of the software. If they tell you you have a perpetual license to distribute modified copies of the work, there is no legal way for them to take back that promise in the future.
What they can do is release it under a different license and make all future modifications only under that license. That does not remove the copies of the work under the old license nor take away the rights granted to people holding those copies, including the right to distribute them to others under the same terms.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 18:49 UTC (Tue) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
I figured that merely pointing out the article was from Wikipedia would be enough of a hint for everybody to add that pinch of salt when reading it.
The reason I linked to it, though, was because I'd not previously heard the argument it suggested regarding revocability of the GPL, which I will summarize here for you and others who would prefer not to read the article. I'm not saying the argument is correct or well-founded, merely that it is interesting to consider.
The main point is that the GPL is (was, maybe) unique in that permits redistribution not by allowing licensees to sublicense to the recipients to whom they distribute the software, but by licensing the work from the original licensor to the recipients. This might be interpreted to mean (IANAL!) that if the original licensor somehow loses the copyright, the program could no longer be distributed to new recipients.
Anyway, as I pointed out in a post a couple of minutes ago, the reason it is particularly important for the conditions of the GPL to be shaped by the courts is because the license is effectively set in stone for a huge amount of software, so there really is no other way to find further clarification on the grey areas that have surfaced over the last decade.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 11, 2005 23:22 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]
Discussion about revokability of the GPL came up when the nmap author forbid SCO from using his software due to their claiming that the GPL was invalid. Also with DJB's software with it's lack of real license.
As for the point about licensing: licenses have to work that way. The only person who can license a copyrighted work is the copyright holder. They may give permission for another to sublicense, but that only works because they are acting under the copyright holder's authority. A copyright isn't ever transferred through licensing, GPL or otherwise. The point is not that the copyright holder doesn't have absolute authority over distribution with the GPL, but that they do have such authority and chose to use it to grant sublicensing rights with only minimal restrictions. They can't "ungrant" those later, as there was no provision in the original license for that to happen. IANAL either.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 12, 2005 18:02 UTC (Wed) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link]
I am not a lawyer either, but IMO revocation of a written offer requires at least a written revocation. Thanks to the GPL every owner of a copy of the sourcecode has the right to redistribute and relicense. It won't be trivial to send out revocation notices to all redistributors of your code. It is more difficult than the RIAA and MPAA task to track P2P users, a John Doe lawsuit shouldn't work against someone who legimately distributes your code.If you succeeded in taking this notification hurdle, the real legal fun will start. You will be asked to pay damages for revocation of distribution rights, people will object to revocation of their rights to use the code, etc. I can not tell beforehand how the lawsuits will work out in all relevant jurisdictions, I don't expect that you'll win the ~100 lawsuits easily.
Nmap Non-Revocation
Posted Oct 13, 2005 6:50 UTC (Thu) by fyodor (subscriber, #3481) [Link]
Discussion about revokability of the GPL came up when the nmap author forbid SCO from using his software due to their claiming that the GPL was invalid.I was not arguing (nor do I believe) that the GPL can be revoked in the general case. The SCO issue was based on specific language within the GPL clause 5: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." To the best of my knowlege, SCO has ceased distribution of Nmap in accordance with my demand (If anyone catches them still distributing it, let me know).
As for the Nessus issue, I have already sent out a response for the Nmap Security Scanner Project. We aren't planning to follow suit. Nmap has been GPL since its release more than 8 years ago and I am happy with that license.
Single-company free software
Posted Oct 21, 2005 20:49 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link]
There just isn't any credible reason to believe in the ability for a pure license to be revoked outside of any terms embodied in that licenseYes there is. And if you google "GPL revocable", you will find additional discussion which makes it clear that the question is far from settled.