| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Examining an attack on the GPL
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:13 UTC (Mon) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144)In reply to: Examining an attack on the GPL by vblum
Parent article: Examining an attack on the GPL
Again, Eben Moglen explained this above. The GPL is a license (not a contract). When it comes to violating a license that allows copying or distributing a copyrighted work, the copyright holder has legal recourse to ask a judge for damages or to stop the infringement. (If the violator abides by the GPL -- by, in this case, releasing the code in their derived work -- then there is no longer any license violation.)
This isn't in the GPL itself. This is how license violations of copyrighted materials are handled by US courts.
(Log in to post comments)
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:24 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
Hm. I see that point more clearly now.Still paragraph 5 is rather threatening in combination with 2a and 6 (and rightfully so). Why the appropriate "damages" should not be the forced opening of infringing code in a given case escapes me.
But, I've posted too much already! Thanks for the answers!
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 25, 2003 0:18 UTC (Tue) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]
Is there some reason why a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals GPL code for use in its proprietary product is more likely to have to lose a proprietary interest in their own contribution than a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals code with some other license? For concreteness, say Rogue Wave code is somehow found in their product and they never bought a Rogue Wave license. Is the worry that "some judge" is likely to be much more punitive in the GPL stealing case?If the point here is that GPL should actually be treated like a real license then I'm sure the FSF and others are in favor of that concern.
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 25, 2003 1:22 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
No 100 % compelling reason. BUT, one might argue that the nature of GPL makes theargument much much easier to force code opening as a way of remedying damages. No
need to motivate it first ... it's already right there.
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 26, 2003 16:29 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]
What the company with proprietary code and a court would care about is the overall monetary value of any awarded damages. Courts don't work like interior decorators and just award damages willy-nilly based on a coordinating "theme".
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 30, 2003 12:04 UTC (Sun) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link]
Is there some reason why a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals GPL code for use in its proprietary product is more likely to have to lose a proprietary interest in their own contribution than a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals code with some other license?
No. But that's an inappropriate comparison. You won't normally see the proprietary code lying there in web sites waiting for you to download without you signing an agreement, contract, whatever.
There are reasons why proprietary software writers would object GPL, and it is perfectly legitimate: GPL is written to crush them. While I'm perfectly for GPL and 100% against proprietary software, I think GPL software writers still have an obligation to remind people from falling into the trap and become forced to abandon their projects (or GPL their code). I mean, while the language of GPL is as clear as crystal, and while all the rules for using the software is clearly written there, we still shouldn't try misleading proprietary writers to believe that GPL is very safe to use for their project--and only after their projects started, tell them that they are violating the license and force them to stop. It's better to get them warned at the beginning.
If GPL wins over proprietary software, I'd much rather it win by a fair competition, rather than by misinformation by software writers.
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 25, 2003 11:05 UTC (Tue) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]
> The GPL is a license (not a contract).Is there a difference between a license and a contract in US laws?
In my own country, the Netherlands, the law doesn't speaks about licenses and
contracts. Instead, it speaks about agreements between two parties and a
license or contract is just a proof of an agreement, not the agreement itself. (I.e.
an oral agreement can has the same legal status as a written contract, if you can
prove it).
Because of that, a license which you find inside packaged software and you have
automatically agreed to by opening the package is void; there is no proof the one
who opened the package agreed to it.
On the other hand, someone who copies GPL software must have clearly read
the license, because otherwise he is not allowed to copy. In this case, the license
is a proof of an agreement between two parties.
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 25, 2003 16:28 UTC (Tue) by kay (subscriber, #1362) [Link]
> Because of that, a license which you find inside packaged software and you have> automatically agreed to by opening the package is void; there is no proof the one
> who opened the package agreed to it.
this void only the "accept by open", so you can return the software if you dont agree with the licence inside.
if you use the software, the licence is accepted.
Examining an attack on the GPL
Posted Nov 26, 2003 9:13 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]
You do not need a license to use software, just like you do not need a license to read abook. You do need a license to install it, because that is copying, which you are only
allowed to do with permission from the author.
license vs contract
Posted Nov 28, 2003 17:22 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
In my own country, the Netherlands, the law doesn't speaks about licenses and contracts. Instead, it speaks about agreements between two parties and a license or contract is just a proof of an agreement, not the agreement itself.Then you're just translating to English wrong. In English, "license" isn't a document or evidence of something -- it's a synonym for "permission." It is, by the way, very common to contract with someone to give you a license in exchange for something else (e.g. money).
It's hard for me to believe that Dutch copyright, patent, and other law doesn't have some word that means "license" in this way.
FYI, in American law, "contract" and "agreement" are synonyms and there is no good word for the proof of the contract. It's just called "documentation of the contract," or "evidence of the contract," or something like that.