| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract?Maybe it would be better if it were a contract?Posted Jan 29, 2008 17:51 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
The GPL goes out of its way to say that it's a license, not a contract. There have apparently been some recent cases where courts appeared inclined to consider it under contract law rather than copyright law. FLOSS commentators have tended to view that with alarm. However, viewed as a license, it's hard to see how to interpret "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors" as licensing language, as opposed to contractual language. The licensor is promising to do something in the future, which seems to me [IANAL] to be what contracts do, as opposed to what licenses do (grant someone permission to do something). So, is it really a license, a contract, or a little bit of both? Is a court likely to accept the idea of it being both?
(Log in to post comments)
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 18:42 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] The licensor is NOT promising to do something in the future. They are promising to not disallow redistribution under the same terms in the future. There is no action on the part of the licensor when redistribution occurs. Yes, the wording of the GPL alludes to there being a promise to do something in the future, but common sense says otherwise. Please, no rants about judges not using common sense.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:25 UTC (Tue) by juriise (subscriber, #38305) [Link] I think some easy, simple language is appropriate here: 1. The GPL can not, and does not pretend to trump copyright law. Language that crosses the law is carefully not included in the text. This is different from many commercial non-free licenses. The GPL builds on the law to make software under that license valuable to the user. 2.The GPL is a license, same word as a permit. It is not a contract. Why? A contracts needs two parties, each party needs to promise something, and each party needs to sign it. To make it legal, each party also needs to get something out of it. A license, same as a permit, can be a part of a contract though, the rest might be the transfer of some money. You can use all the provisions of the GPL, including making and distributing copies, without signing off any of your rights. 3. Is there a time limit in the GPL? No. That is why it is forever. Gifts and sales are the same. People taking back what they have given or sold, because they change their minds, that would be the end of capitalism as we know it. 4. Yes, there are dark corners in every part of the law landscape, where anything can happen, but do those details move the market? 5. The clear language and consistence with the law are the reasons why the GPL is not more often in the courts. Anyway, the non-rights to those who does not comply with the license, has been decided in the courts many times. Have not seen any court cases where the revokability of the license has been decided, but I know of no piece of GPL software that has been revoked either. 5. There is a strong desinformation pressure in these matters. Be critical.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 21:02 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sepreece is correct: they are not promising to do something in the future, they are promising, instead, *not* do do something they otherwise have the right to do: halt distribution. At issue is (a) whether that promise is binding, considering that they get nothing in exchange, and (b), assuming it is binding, whether that promise is also binding on a subsequent owner of copyright on the same work, and particularly, in this case, (c) whether they are obliged to continue making that same promise indefinitely, to every new recipient of the code, and whether a subsequent owner is also obliged to make such promises. It would be easy to believe a court enforcing (a), but equally easy to believe one not enforcing (b) or (c).
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 21:08 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sorry, it's clugstj who's correct.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 23:14 UTC (Tue) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] > (a) whether that promise is binding, considering that they get nothing in exchange What they get in exchange is access to other code under the GPL, access which is in large part dependent upon and protected by the non-revocability of the GPL. Peter Yellman
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 23:55 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] I agree, Mr. Yellman. In addition, it doesn't matter (in the legal sense) whether they get anything or not. Licenses do not require exchange of consideration as contracts do. They are a grant of privilege, possibly with stipulations of responsibility attached. The responsibilities attached don't necessarily convey any advantage to the licensor--there are motivations besides those of the economic variety. In addition, it also doesn't matter because no action is occurring at all on the part of the author; the license text merely states that anyone acquiring a copy of the software has, already, by explicit stipulation in the license, the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, with no requirement to inquire of the author to verify this. The rights of usage, redistribution and modification are "inalienable", so to speak, for anyone with access to the software.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 30, 2008 2:42 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Again, you're confusing the rights of the recipient of a license grant with the rights of the copyright owner. It is the copyright owner who is left unrestricted by the lack of exchange. The distinction between licensee and copyright owner is not subtle. There's no reason to get muddled here.
Contract law is a cesspit. Posted Jan 30, 2008 2:35 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] They have that access anyway. Therefore, it's not an exchange, therefore not a consideration. Wishful thinking is muddy thinking.
Contract law is a cesspit. Posted Jan 30, 2008 7:18 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] The way you keep fighting for this VERY long stretched interpretation of the law, one starts to think that you are the one trying to revoke the ATSC GPL license. In that case, you are the one with wishful thinking...
|
|
||||||||||||