| |||||||||||||
They're involved in the distributionThey're involved in the distributionPosted Jul 10, 2007 13:49 UTC (Tue) by dark (subscriber, #8483)In reply to: They're involved in the distribution by rickmoen Parent article: Microsoft's proclamation on GPLv3 Actually, that word "receiving" which you emphasize so much does not occur in clause 9 of the GPLv2. That clause simply says "...you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation". Now, when do such terms and conditions apply? Clause 0 sheds some light on this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." Thus, no terms or conditions apply to the act of receiving this software. They do apply to copying, distribution, and modification. Distribution is what we are concerned with in your illustrative example. Microsoft distributes gcc and elects to follow the terms and conditions of the GPLv2 in doing so. If Microsoft distributes to you, it must follow clauses 1, 2, and 3 (as applicable) of the GPLv2. Once it has done so, it has satisfied all its obligations to the copyright holder. Now you receive your copy of gcc via Microsoft. Microsoft has a license, the GPLv2, for distributing it to you, and you do not need a license to receive it (as clause 5 makes clear). However, you do have a license if you want it: clause 6 states that you get a GPLv2 license directly from the original licensor, in this case the FSF. If you accept that license, then you get the option under clause 9 of following the terms and conditions of the GPLv3 instead. Microsoft isn't even involved in that option, it's an option you get from the original licensor and it covers your right to copy, distribute, or modify.
(Log in to post comments)
They're involved in the distribution Posted Jul 10, 2007 18:41 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] "dark" wrote:Thus, no terms or conditions apply to the act of receiving this software. They do apply to copying, distribution, and modification. You are correct that it is not necessary to have a licence in order to merely receive software in a lawful fashion -- or to run it, for that matter (permission for that being implied in the manner of distribution). And indeed you've listed most of the copyright-reserved rights for which one must have permission. Use of those rights following literal I-took-a-copy-from-you receipt are what I was was intending to speak of. (I apologise for my poor choice of word.) For example, Microsoft Corporation in creating the GNU SDK for Interix needed the right to create derivative works; in distributing the SDK, it needed the right of redistribution. Both of those are available to them by opting to accept their copy under GPLv2, but not, as we both said, if they decline the licensing terms entirely, which would leave them only with the implied right to possess and run gcc. Microsoft isn't even involved in that option.... It's involved in the physical conveyance of the copy, and therein lay our discussion. If you believed "sepreece", Microsoft would have (somehow) gained the prerogative of stripping the "at your option, any later version" terms from the copy they pass downstream to me. My point is that "sepreece" is mistaken; that Microsoft lacks that option: It is obliged to pass along the copyright holder's conditions unaltered, which I as a lawful recipient am thus entitled to invoke. When I have done so, if I elect to accept GPLv3 conditions as applying to my instance of gcc (in order to gain the rights of modification, redistribution, etc.), I've demonstrably accepted a piece of GPLv3-covered FSF software from Microsoft Corporation. Now, Microsoft in those circumstances might try to assert that they had nothing to do with the GPLv3-ness of my software instance; that that is solely a matter between me and FSF, and that they are not a party to the transaction, and nowhere have consented to that licence. That might prevail, and it might not. Good luck with that, guys. Rick Moen
They're involved in the distribution Posted Jul 10, 2007 20:50 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "When I have done so, if I elect to accept GPLv3 conditions as applying to my instance of gcc (in order to gain the rights of modification, redistribution, etc.), I've demonstrably accepted a piece of GPLv3-covered FSF software from Microsoft Corporation."
No, you have received a piece of "GPLv2 or any later version" software, which is critically different from "a piece of GPLv3-covered software".
Suppose, for a moment, GPLvn required that distribution be only in CD format and version GPLvn+1 required that distribution be only in DVD format. Someone conveying could choose which set of terms to follow and, therefore, which format had to be provided. You, as recipient, would have no right to insist on any format other than what the distributor chose to provide.
And that's the way it goes with the patent clauses. GPLv2 carries different patent license/covenant conditions than GPLv3. The distributor chooses which apply to a particular distribution. The recipient is stuck with what the distributor chose.
There is no reason to assume that Microsoft has distributed any software *under the terms of GPLv3*.
They're involved in the distribution Posted Jul 10, 2007 22:54 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] "sepreece" wrote:No, you have received a piece of "GPLv2 or any later version" software, which is critically different from "a piece of GPLv3-covered software". It is critically different in some other contexts, but not this one, which specifically concerned which of those two options I elected in the hypothetical. It's difficult to fathom how you could possibly have missed my meaning. I suspect you're somehow still hung up on your prior misconception that I'd claimed downstream recipients can dicatate what licensing applies upstream, which of course I said absolutely nowhere at all. But, regardless of where this bizarre interpretation is coming from, our discussion is logically at an end, for reasons detailed below. The distributor chooses which apply to a particular distribution. To the contrary: The redistributor has no such discretion, as setting licensing terms is by law the copyright owner's monopoly. On that extremely key point, we apparently have no common grounds for discussion. You state that redistributors can pass along to downstream only the one of two licensing options specified by the codebase owner; I say that this interpretation is clearly contrary to fundamental copyright law. There is no point in further discussion, I think. Rick Moen
They're involved in the distribution Posted Jul 11, 2007 1:13 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Perhaps not.
Note that I did not say that the redistributor passes along only certain rights. In fact, I said the opposite - the recipient gets to choose between the available license versions to determine what rights, otherwise reserved to the copyright holder, the license grants to the recipient.
As you say, the redistributor does not get to "set the terms for the distribution"; the copyright holder does that. However, if the copyright holder used the "or any later version" language, the redistributor gets to *choose* between the available alternative sets of terms. That is exactlly what the license says and the FAQ confirms.
The redistributor gets to choose one specific license version to define the terms under which it conveys the covered work. Those terms define the redistributor's obligations under the license, including the patent license implications.
Again, I do not believe that Microsoft has ever distributed a work under the terms of GPLv3, which seems to be the operative question.
They're involved in the distribution Posted Jul 11, 2007 1:25 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] sepreece wrote:As you say, the redistributor does not get to "set the terms for the distribution"; the copyright holder does that. However, if the copyright holder used the "or any later version" language, the redistributor gets to *choose* between the available alternative sets of terms. You're contradicting yourself. I'm sorry, but we have a fundamental difference, and my assessment is that you are also arguing with basics of copyright law. We clearly have no basis for discussion. Have a nice day. Rick Moen
They're involved in the distribution Posted Jul 11, 2007 3:19 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] As you will; you have a nice day, too.
|
|||||||||||||