Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
In July, Konsole author Lars Doelle posted a note on the MotorolaFans.com forum about two programs that appear to violate the GNU General Public License (GPL), under which Konsole is licensed. GPL violations are nothing new, but in this case Doelle has not only put the violators on notice, he's also telling users to stop using the offending programs as well."
Posted Oct 6, 2006 19:57 UTC (Fri)
by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
[Link] (7 responses)
In fact the claim that a binary can be compliant or non-compliant on its own seems very dubious to me. It is the distributor who either complies or not, and the very same binary may be available from compliant or non-compliant distributors.
Posted Oct 7, 2006 2:54 UTC (Sat)
by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
[Link] (6 responses)
It's certainly possible executables themselves can violate the GPL, regardless of whether they are distributed with their source code. One way is if a modified executable omits the copyright notice required by section 2(c). Another way is if an executable is produced by linking GPL code against code distributed under an incompatible license. However, in this context I think he intended to say, "by the emergence of a compliant binary distribution," meaning a package that included both the executable and source code.
Posted Oct 7, 2006 16:54 UTC (Sat)
by landley (guest, #6789)
[Link] (3 responses)
My approach to this sort of thing is "So sue me. I'll defend myself in
The FSF will happily take any interpretation that makes GPLv2 less
Posted Oct 7, 2006 19:12 UTC (Sat)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link]
Posted Oct 8, 2006 2:55 UTC (Sun)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 9, 2006 8:48 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Oct 9, 2006 3:09 UTC (Mon)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
This is wrong, no executable here goes against GPL (which, via copyright, controls distribution and modifications; in the US it can't control running the program). I may get the program illegaly, it means I have no right to use it; but if I get it (or parts to it) legally, what I do is my own business.
IANAL, in any case.
Posted Oct 13, 2006 0:49 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
This seems right to me, but there was a case a few years ago that really muddied the water: a court found that a universal garage door opener remote control violated copyright law. The remote control cracked the opener code in order to get the opener to open the door. That was found to be a violation of DMCA, which prohibits circumventing security designed to prevent copying. Somehow, the court found that causing the door opening code to run inside the opener was a copy, such that causing that code to run was the sole right of the opener manufacturer under copyright law.
I'm not a copyright lawyer; I can't tell if this logic applies to running the Konsole code, but it might.
Posted Oct 8, 2006 16:30 UTC (Sun)
by vruz (guest, #32825)
[Link]
Posted Oct 9, 2006 15:57 UTC (Mon)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (12 responses)
If it was distributed in violation of the GPL, then it isn't GPL'd code. Especially since - if I understood the article correctly - part of the problem is that source files with no explicit GPL license grant were distributed (they had become separated from the file that granted license). If the file(s) in question do not explicitly mention a license, and there is no encompassing license in the modified source tree, then there is NO LICENSE AT ALL to distribute those files. They were only GPL'd in the context of the associated COPYING file -- if that's gone, then there's no license, and it's an automatic copyright violation for distributing them.
Posted Oct 9, 2006 20:23 UTC (Mon)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Oct 13, 2006 0:57 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (10 responses)
There's a crucial difference here. The users did not buy an existing copy -- i.e. transfer possession of a copy from someone else. They made new copies. They did that by downloading from a web site. They had no permission from the copyright holder to do that download.
Though the copyright owner can't stop such a user from running the program, it's normal reparations to demand that the unpermitted copy be destroyed.
Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:30 UTC (Wed)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Oct 19, 2006 1:05 UTC (Thu)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (8 responses)
I'll grant that if the distributor made the copy, then just the transmission to the user doesn't constitute another copy for copyright purposes.
It's an intriguing idea to say that when you click "download," you're just requesting that the distributor make you a copy, and it's all on him if he chooses to accomodate you. Did he give you a copy, or did you take one?
What I'm seeing in current copyright cases is the courts are more than willing to blame everyone involved in making the copy happen, even someone who did nothing but tell the recipient how to get the copy. None of them have clean hands, and the copyright owner is free to collect damages from whomever is most convenient.
Posted Oct 19, 2006 3:54 UTC (Thu)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (7 responses)
My browser sent a request to his server, his server sent me a copy, or refused the request. Sure sounds like he gave it to me. Unless, of course, I had to use some sort of exploit or trickery to get him to send it...
Posted Oct 19, 2006 5:25 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (5 responses)
So... If you see some oranges stacked in front of a grocery store, do you take a few because they're just left there unprotected?
Posted Oct 19, 2006 6:28 UTC (Thu)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 19, 2006 18:41 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (3 responses)
The laws differ from state to state, but afaik every state assigns some responsibility to the receiver as well. Look up 'trafficking stolen material'. (if you're not in the U.S. then I really hope your country has similar laws to prevent fencing of stolen goods).
Here's one example:
Anyhow, regardless of the law, I still hope that you would take some responsibility for your actions.
Posted Oct 19, 2006 23:01 UTC (Thu)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 20, 2006 1:47 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 20, 2006 3:10 UTC (Fri)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link]
But that's not true. As you said, there is an extra element that has to be there before I hold any responsibility at all. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the grocer has authority to give away his oranges. Where the analogy breaks down badly is recovery, however. If the grocer gives me oranges that aren't his, and this is discovered before I eat all the oranges, any left may be recovered as stolen property. I'm not responsible for his theft, but the proper owner of the oranges still has title on them. He cannot, however, charge me for the ones I've eaten - he has to go to the grocer for that. In cases of copyright infringement, there's no analogy there at all - since making a copy illegally doesn't deprive anyone of their pre-existing copy, there's no recover to be made, only damages to be sued for.
Posted Oct 19, 2006 14:31 UTC (Thu)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Sure, if that's your mental model of what an HTTP GET is, and if you're a network engineer, that may well be the model that prejudices you. If you're less technical, you might see it this way: The distributor puts up copying machine. You approach the machine and operate its controls to cause it to make you a copy.
Analogy: A library provides a photocopier and a shelf of popular legal contract forms next to it for copying. I make one, to save the price of buying a copy of the form. Did I make the copy, or did the library make it and give it to me? All I did was send a request to the computer inside the photocopier, by pressing the START button, and the machine, following programming controlled by the library, chose to make the copy and deliver it to me in the output tray.
I am troubled by the concluding sentence of the linux.com article, that "the problem can only be solved by the emergence of a compliant binary." As I understand the article, the non-compliance is due to the fact that the GPL license text had become separated from the source code used to compile the program. But one would not expect this to change a single byte in the resulting binary. In what way would a more compliant binary "emerge"? Would re-publishing the source with license attached suddenly make all existing binaries compliant?Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
If I grab a single function from a GPLv2 program that has an "emit Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
license notice" option and stick it into another existing GPLv2 program
that doesn't emit the license notice (heck, may not even have an
interactive mode), do I have to add an "emit license notice" option?
(I'm not even sure how you'd go _about_ emitting a license notice in a
program along the lines of apache's mod_gzip.) How about if the copied
bit was some deeply technical esoterica like CRC table generation code
used to replace a previously hardcoded CRC table, that has nothing
whatsoever to do with any user interface anywhere?
court. I didn't remove your runtime notice, my program never had it.
The code is still GPLv2, and my version is v2 only, not 'or later'."
comfortable to use, because they want everybody to switch to GPLv3. But
after the FSF beat up on poor Mepis I dismissed them as a bully I have no
sympathy for, and their interpretations aren't necessarily what's
enforceable.
AFAICT, you are encouraged (and maybe required, although this is unclear to me) to make interactive programs output an appropriate note about their license, the lack of warranty and so on when they start up. The GPL does not seem to say anything about non-interactive programs.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Does this qualify as "anti-GPLv3 FUD"? I mean, nothing in the original article speaks about GPLv3, yet Landley is casting some doubts about GPLv2 and then attributing them to the FSF and their hidden agenda with GPLv3:
Very relevant
The FSF will happily take any interpretation that makes GPLv2 less
comfortable to use, because they want everybody to switch to GPLv3.
If this is not Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, I don't know what is. I would ask people involved to make public their complaints about GPLv3 in the relevant places, and to please document their assertions regarding the FSF elsewhere.
It's not as if the FSF even has anything to *do* with konsole, or indeed KDE as a whole (indeed it's not all that terribly long ago that the FSF was advising people not to use KDE at all).Very relevant
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
in the US it can't control running the program
Guess we should call this a mere "konfusion".Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
> we were told that an author probably cannot forbid users from running GPLed code -- even when distributed in violation of the GPL.Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Keyword being distributing them. You need a license to do things restricted by copyright law - distributing in particular. You need a license to print and distribute copies of my book. But if you do that without a license, I sue you - not the poor sod that bought a copy of the book from you. And it's not illegal for him to read it, either. Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
I sue you - not the poor sod that bought a copy of the book from you.
Eh, technically speaking everytime you do anything on a computer, you're making copies. The server made a copy to memory, another copy to the network buffer, another copy on the local segment, which then a succession of routers copied onto more segments, all the way to the network card copying to a buffer, which is copied to the ram, then to the disk, then back to the ram... but that's not copying under copyright law. There's a specific exemption, in the US at least, for incidental copying in the use of computer programs, and courts of all jurisdictions should look for common sense interpretations rather than literal ones. In this case, the common sense interpretation would be that the *distributor* made a single copy which he then sent across the network to the customer, who effectively has and uses that single copy. Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
In this case, the common sense interpretation would be that the *distributor* made a single copy which he then sent across the network to the customer, who effectively has and uses that single copy.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
It's an intriguing idea to say that when you click "download," you're just requesting that the distributor make you a copy, and it's all on him if he chooses to accomodate you. Did he give you a copy, or did you take one?
You're expected to take some responsibility for your actions too. If you had not clicked on the link, his server would not have sent it to you. You're both culpable.Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
If the grocer offers me some for free, and I take them, then it turns out later they weren't his to give away, the responsibility for that is on him, not I. Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
If you have reason to suspect that the item you're downloading is illegal (i.e. the owner has no right to give it to you), then you are responsible too.Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/ptI...
The analogies are badly off in the sense that they are discussing property and theft, rather than copyright and copyright infringement. Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
You said, "the responsibility for that is on him, not I." Well, under U.S. law, the responsibility is indeed on both of you. I just wanted the analogy to introduce another situation where you are expected to behave responsibly regardless of your surroundings. I'm certainly not trying to conflate oranges and computer files. :)Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Well, under U.S. law, the responsibility is indeed on both of you.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
My browser sent a request to his server, his server sent me a copy, or refused the request. Sure sounds like he gave it to me.