Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl
Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat, has posted an open
letter to Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. "Darl, for the sake of your
case in front of the courts, for the sake of your company's ability to win
customers, for the sake of everyone's blood pressure, and to save yourself
further personal embarrassment, you might want to be less vocal. All you
are doing is causing your audience to educate themselves. Once everyone
understands how wrong you are your stock price will suffer."
(Log in to post comments)
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 16:41 UTC (Thu) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link] "Secondly, no one is arguing against copyright. Everyone agrees Intellectual Property, from trademark law, to copyrights and patents, is a good thing.Ok, so maybe Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, the inventor of the GPL license, thinks it is not a good idea to copyright software." I thought (many/most) of us were against software patents and for copyright...
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 16:56 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I also sent him (well, lulu.com) a correction about the Eldred case. IfI'm not mistaken it was not about 95 years being too long but about retroactive changes not promoting the arts and sciences.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 12, 2003 11:22 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] It looks like they have relayed my message.> Thank you for sending us this note. I'll pass it on to Mr. Young's
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 18:29 UTC (Thu) by rkpagadala (guest, #6588) [Link] You missed the free software movement. And are describing the open source movement.
Missed the movement... Posted Dec 11, 2003 22:23 UTC (Thu) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link] Ones stance on software patents would seem to be little affected by"membership" in either of those two movements. As far as Mr. Stallman's views are concerned, I would argue that he (like most of us) isn't against copyright so much as he's opposed to a broken implementation of it. I guess, I expected a more polished letter from Bob Young because he was
Stallman's not completely against copyright Posted Dec 12, 2003 7:26 UTC (Fri) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] As far as Mr. Stallman's views are concerned, I would argue that he (like most of us) isn't against copyright so much as he's opposed to a broken implementation of it.Bingo. Stallman breaks creative works into three rough categories: 1) Functional works. These include software, manuals, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and so on. These works are basically tools, and users may want to update them. 2) Works of opinion. Stallman--who does a lot of expository writing--sees no need for people to be able to edit other people's opinions. This actually makes Stallman more pro-copyright than the Debian project, which is why Debian is criticizing him for the GFDL. 3) Artistic works. Stallman's ideas about derivatives of artistic works are more complicated. Stallman has often considered 3-to-5-year copyrights in the past, and occasionally suggested they might be a reasonable compromise in certain cases. Recently, he's been leaning away from music copyrights because he sees no way to enforce them other than coercive police tactics and electronic surveillence, neither of which he sees as a good deal for society. So Stallman's opinions are pretty radical in one sense, and pretty boring in another. He'd like substantial reform, but he's mostly going to write essays and release software under the GPL.
Stallman's not completely against copyright Posted Dec 12, 2003 8:55 UTC (Fri) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] Works of opinion. Stallman--who does a lot of expository writing--sees no need for people to be able to edit other people's opinions. This actually makes Stallman more pro-copyright than the Debian project, which is why Debian is criticizing him for the GFDL. Wrong. We are not criticizing the GFDL because it forbids editing of opinions. The problem with the GFDL is that, through the use of "invariant sections", it promotes (or at least allows) linking of technical documentation with opinion sections (or even other technical docs) in a way that does not allow you to use any of the technical documention without including all of the opinion section(s). For example, you cannot use an example from the GNU gdb manual to document your GUI debugger without including the "Free Software" and "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" sections verbatim alongside it. There are also issues with the requirements for "transparent" vs. "opaque" distribution. FWIW, I'm on the "Free Software" side of things, and agree with at least the general direction of Stallman's opinions and arguments. I still think the GFDL is a bad license, at least if the "invarian sections" part is used.
What does Richard Stallman think of copyright? Posted Dec 11, 2003 17:31 UTC (Thu) by rkpagadala (guest, #6588) [Link] Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallmanhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
What does Richard Stallman think of copyright? Posted Dec 11, 2003 17:43 UTC (Thu) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] I think you are being polite. I think, with good heart and better arrogance, he's making a fool of himself. he should retract his letter, fix it, and re-publish.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 17:50 UTC (Thu) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] "Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it doesnot need contract enforcement in order to work." -- Eben Moglen --
FSF: Yes your Honor, the FSF and Mr. Doe have agreed to stipulate that all DOE: We agree your Honor, the GPL is a license and not a contract. Therefore we FSF: We further enter into evidence this copy of the GPL provided by the FSF. DOE: We concur your honor. Our GPL copy is identical. JUDGE: Mr Doe did you distribute the code in question? DOE: I did absolutely distribute the code. That's true beyond a reasonable JUDGE: Why shouldn't you be found guilty of unauthorized distribution under the DOE: I had permission. It's right there (pointing). It's the GPL. The FSF gave JUDGE: The "Section 1" referred to reads: "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's Clearly the Copyright Act provides for distribution with permission I fail to FSF: But your Honor the defendant failed to publish a copyright notice and "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not The defendant had to accept all the license terms and conditions of the GPL to JUDGE: What say you defendant Doe? DOE: Your honor "acceptance of license terms and conditions" is addressed JUDGE: Plaintiff and Defendant have stipulated that the GPL would be enforced FSF: Maybe a little contract law ain't such a bad thing after all.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 18:00 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] >> FSF: Maybe a little contract law ain't such a bad thing after all.That's stupid. No one is saying contract law is bad. They are just saying it doesn't apply to the GPL since the GPL is a license and not a contract.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 19:18 UTC (Thu) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] Here's an exchange between law Professor Junger from Case Western ReserveUniversity and Alessandro Rubini. Professor Junger is well know from the Junger v. Daly appellate decision on export prohibition of software encryption code. http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-February/000641.html note the: > ....(A If you find a reference to a ``non-contractual copyright permission'' please let me know.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Apr 23, 2004 5:52 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] From UCITA 5. Non-Contractual, Intellectual Property Notices. Subsection (d) clarifies that this Act does not apply to copyright or other intellectual property notices that are not a contract. This Act applies to agreements and contracts. Thus, the Act does not apply if an academic physicist in Houston creates program code and makes it freely available to other academics or individuals as a way of contributing to the development of so-called "free software" or "open source" software. Non-contractual conduct is not covered by this Act. Now, I know that UCITA has been written by schmucks, but hey, if they understand the "non-contractual" then maybe it's time for you too?
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Apr 23, 2004 6:23 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Just to make it clear what the above comment from UCITA relates to: (d) [ Intellectual property notices.] This [Act] does not apply to an intellectual property notice that is based solely on intellectual property rights and is not part of a contract. The effect of such a notice is determined by law other than this [Act]. Strange stuff... One would almost think that such notices can actually have some effect, even when there is no contract. Really, really strange...
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 18:04 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] You forgot about section 4: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. SCO has attempted to sublicense the Linux kernel. This means that they forfeit their permission to distribute the Linux kernel. There is also section 6: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ... I am certain that, by now, someone at IBM has downloaded the source to the Linux kernel from SCO's FTP site, just to gather evidence if nothing else. Likewise for Red Hat and lots of other folks. This means that either SCO has granted IBM and Red Hat the right to distribute anything that SCO distributed as part of the Linux kernel, or else they are in violation. Darl wants to argue that the GPL is invalid. But if the GPL is invalid, then his company has no permission to distribute Linux, and they are guilty of copyright infringement.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 18:10 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] In case it wasn't clear, your attempt to say that section 5 is invalid, even if upheld, would not cancel sections 4 and 6. That said, copyright law gives the copyright holder monopoly right over distribution of the work. Your clever attempt to trick your straw man Moglen into punting the case would be unlikely to work in real life; it basically says "accept these terms or I don't give you permission to distribute".
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 19:03 UTC (Thu) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] There is a "crystal clear" exchange between Richard Stallman and a law professor at Cleveland State University on this subject.http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html Sometimes "clear" is in the eye of the beholder.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 12, 2003 12:03 UTC (Fri) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] Sure.And in his reply to Prof. Mickey Davis, RMS hit the nail on the head: "The crucial point is that when we release a program under the GPL, we do not claim that all possessors of a copy have agreed to any contract with us." You quoted Prof. Eben Moglen as stating the practical import of this at the beginning of your post, viz.: "Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work." -- Eben Moglen All you seem to be saying is that some concepts of contract law are implicit in copyright law, otherwise the whole thing would never work. Well, duh. Defendant John Doe in your example claims the right, because contract law has been explicitly excluded from consideration, to stop listening at any point he deems appropriate. So he read the GPL right up to and through the part about "you may copy and distribute" -- then he shut his eyes and refused to read another word. That way, when he is called to account for GPL violation he can say "Ha, ha, contract law doesn't apply, so you can't touch me." That's silly. If contract law and copyright law could ever be divorced in the way you hypothesize, I could ask for permission to quote some part of an author's work, then as soon as he got past saying "Sure, you have permission ..." I could clap my hands over my ears and start whistling "The Stars and Stripes Forever." Then I would just reprint the whole thing and claim that contract law doesn't apply. Whether you call it a "license" or a "unilateral contract" is a distinction without a difference. What is important is that, in this case, the recipient is under no reciprocal obligation except the responsibility to understand what permission is being given.
The GPL as a grant of rights, not contract Posted Dec 11, 2003 21:13 UTC (Thu) by jvotaw (subscriber, #3678) [Link] You wrote: FSF: Maybe a little contract law ain't such a bad thing after all.The reason the GPL works without being a contract is subtle: it does not affect the user's behavior outside of the scope of the author's copyright on the work. Copyright law gives authors several exclusive rights, including the right to distribute their work and the right to make derivative works. Authors can, entirely at their discretion, grant these rights to other people. The trick is, copyright law allows you to give others only part of your rights, if you so choose. You can give others as large or as small a part of your rights as you want. For example, you might give someone the right to distribute your book, but only on Fridays. Or you might give them the right to make a derivative work, but only if it's a literal translation into Portugese and they clear the translation with you before publication. The GPL works by granting a very specific, thin slice of rights: "I grant you the right to distribute my work, or make derivative works, but only in the case where you grant others the same rights I'm granting you." The rest of the GPL's text is just implementation details. The GPL does not force users to do anything outside of the scope of the original author's copyrights. It does not require users to pay the author money, or refrain from saying bad things about the software, for example. Those things were up to the user's discretion before accepting the license, and afterwards. If an author wanted to affect the user's behavior outside the scope of the rights you're granting them, she'd need a contract. The GPL doesn't go outside of that limited scope so doesn't need to be a contract. This means the GPL is more internationally portable, since copyright law seems to be more uniform in different nations (for good or ill -- thanks, WIPO) than contract law. -Joel
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 11, 2003 21:58 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] After the judge reads section 1 of the GPL, the FSF should simply respondthat what DOE was not distribution of the work with permission, because DOE didn't have permission to distribute the work, except if "conspicuously and appropriately publish[ing] on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty". Section 5 is irrelevant (and it essentially merely informational, since it essentially just repeats copyright law). Just because the GPL grants you permission to do one thing doesn't mean that it grants you permission to do whatever you want. Falling back to Copyright law, the owner of the copyright has the exlusive right to distribute copies of the work and to authorize others to distribute copies of the work. DOE has not been authorized to distribute copies of the work, having failed to fit the pattern given in section 1 of the GPL, and is therefore infringing. For that matter, if the authorization to distribute copies of works is automatically considered a contract, then by excluding contract law, DOE has eliminated any possibility of not infringing the copyright, since that would mean that only a contract would permit distribution. However, it seems to me that current practice holds that a copyright owner may authorize limited distribution without needing a signed contract.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 12, 2003 0:10 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Your argument is extremely disingenous. Section 1 grants permission to copy and distribute verbatim copies of the work, provided that you include the copyright notice, etc. The defendant does not have to accept the license. If the defendant does not accept the license (and has not been otherwise granted some permission by the copyright owner), he or she has EXACTLY the rights granted by copyright law, which (in general) do not allow distribution of copies.This is true even if the court chooses to ignore section 5 of the license. If I don't accept the license for Microsoft Word, I'm not allowed to distribute copies of it. If I don't accept the license for GCC, I'm not allowed to distribute copies of it. By not accepting a software license, I gain no permissions beyond what is automatically granted by copyright law, and that is true whether the license is commercial or GPL. If I want to distribute copies of a GPL'd work (either verbatim or derived), I have two choices:
Another example: I could write and give to my neighbor a license granting him the use of the swimming pool in my back yard on the condition that he not bring beer bottles into the yard. The neighbor doesn't have to accept this license. But if he chooses to accept it, then brings beer bottles into the yard, he's not going to be able to convince the court that I had granted him UNCONDITIONAL permission to use the pool, just because he doesn't like the condition imposed by the license. If he argues that he didn't accept the license, then he had no license to use the pool, and was trespassing.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 12, 2003 2:52 UTC (Fri) by stef70 (guest, #14813) [Link] > he had no license to use the pool, and was trespassing.Please, don't shoot you neighbors for a stupid affair of bier bottles!
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 13, 2003 5:47 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] If the licence in question was a BSD licence, would your imaginary case be any different? I think not - BSD licence imposes different conditions, but it does impose them. And it seems that the judge in BSD v USL case thought that the licence is quite valid.I don't see how GPL would be different in that regard. For that matter, people have been mentioning (especially ESR) licensing Linux kernel under a new "Open Software Licence", which doesn't seem any different either in that regard. I was just wondering what you think of the above...
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Apr 7, 2004 20:30 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] I was re-running this scenario with the original BSD licence multiple times through this imaginary court case and the conclusions came up exactly the same. This is from the original BSD licence:------------------------------- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. Now, to view this in the light of the crucial part of this court case, it would go like this: ------------------------------- JUDGE: What say you defendant Doe? DOE: Your honor "meeting of the terms and conditions" is addressed nowhere in copyright law. An extensive search of the Copyright Act reveals no reference to this concept. There's no Restatement (Second) of Copyrights mentioning anything about "meeting of the terms and conditions". There's a Nimmer on Copyright, but there's nothing on "meeting of the terms and conditions" there either. The term has no meaning promulgated under copyright law, therefore it's just verbiage with no legal meaning or effect. The "you may copy and distribute" is precisely defined in the Copyright Act and that's all I did. Absolutely no difference to the GPL, except that the word "accept" was substituted with "meet". However, Copyright Act explicitly talks about "terms and conditions" in a number of its sections, so one would have to conclude that "terms and conditions" are an integral part of copyright licensing and the "extensive search" would actual turn up quite a number of hits (uness done by MIT mathematicians that found Unix code in Linux :-). I don't see any difference whatsoever here. Basically, your theory boils down to this: It is not possible to have conditions attached to a copyright licence without involving the contract law. Given what licences are (i.e. permissions for what otherwise wouldn't be permissible by law) and the fact that they are usually associated with property grants (i.e. copyright is property) and the fact that they _always_ have conditions attached (e.g. you may enter my property on Sunday only), I think your theory is quite incorrect.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Apr 23, 2004 19:44 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Let's assume for a moment that Doe is in fact correct when he asserts: Your honor "acceptance of license terms and conditions" is addressed nowhere in copyright law. This can be for three reasons:
Here is a small reminder of the text of the GPL: TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION After this, terms and conditions are listed, from section 0 to section 12 Under what theory can Doe "accept" only section 1 of "terms and conditions", as you point out, if "acceptance of license terms and conditions" is completely bogus? If "acceptance" is the problem, the bogus section 5 about "acceptance" doesn't apply and is wiped out. The rest of the "terms and conditions" stay, including section 1 (from which Doe supposedly gets his permission), 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Quite sufficient for enforcement of copyright. If "terms and conditions" are the problem, then section 1 is one of those "terms and conditions", so that doesn't apply either, because they were wiped out under the theory that having "terms and conditions" is impossible. If both, see above. Meaning, sections 0 to 12 get wiped out. Quite clearly, no permission. It is not possible, according to your own theory, to justify what Doe is doing with that copyrighted work.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Apr 23, 2004 19:48 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] This: including section 1 (from which Doe supposedly gets his permission), 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Should be: including section 0, 1 (from which Doe supposedly gets his permission), 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 5:54 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] `Speak English!' said the Eaglet. `I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and, what's more, I don't believe you do either!' -- Lewis Carroll -- "Alice in Wonderland" Like Alice's Wonderland, the Free Software Foundation has created a new world... "The traditional example of the license is my invitation to you to come to See the "invitation"? I can "invite" you to dinner at my house, but I can't An invitation to come to dinner at my house instantly invokes the doctrine of In other words an "invitation" to come to dinner is not an "offer" to come to "§24. OFFER DEFINED WOW! This is absolute HERASY in Gpland! An OFFER is an understanding that assent Gpland is a our world and we have every right to define things as we see fit
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 7:18 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] >danw6144You know, it almost sounds like you have something interesting to say. Could you please rewrite your post in a way that is intelligible to the rest of us? Perhaps you could start by avoiding snippets of analogy, and just post for us your definition or interpretation of the terms "invitation" vs. "offer", focusing particularl on the differences and how they are relevant to the debate. Thanks,
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 7:26 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] I am a physicist by training not a lawyer. The best response to your question might be in the this e-mail exchange between a Law Professor at CSU and Richard Stallman.It's well worth the time required to read. http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 12:19 UTC (Fri) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] I've read it. I believe I understand it. And, as I said in reply to your post above, you seem to be up in arms over an obvious point which was never in dispute.Prof. Mickey Davis is right -- a license is a "unilateral contract" which derives meaning and force from contact law. Richard Stallman is right -- GPL licensors do not claim that licensees have made any promises in return. And Prof. Eben Moglen is right -- the GPL does not require contract enforcement in order to work.
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 14:15 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] The point is the GPL may fall under mixed federal / state law interpretation.There is a vast body of contract case law out there and it varies by the fifty states. See the decision Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. It appears four federal circuits MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: 1) I am a physicist by training ... not a lawyer. If you still insist on flaming me, you should know
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 17:59 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] In any event, we'll see soon enough. Once IBM gets into court with SCO over the GPL violations, it'll become clear if GPL works or not.
Gpland Posted Apr 23, 2004 20:06 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] WOW! This is absolute HERASY in Gpland! An OFFER is an understanding that assent to a bargain is INVITED. What nonsense! How dare you use the word "offer" and "invited" in a legal construction. The (Second) Restatement of Contracts is banished from Gpland! Things like the "Restatement" only exist in the real world. OK. Under what theory are then makers of UCITA saying this: (d) [ Intellectual property notices.] This [Act] does not apply to an intellectual property notice that is based solely on intellectual property rights and is not part of a contract. The effect of such a notice is determined by law other than this [Act]. 5. Non-Contractual, Intellectual Property Notices. Subsection (d) clarifies that this Act does not apply to copyright or other intellectual property notices that are not a contract. This Act applies to agreements and contracts. Thus, the Act does not apply if an academic physicist in Houston creates program code and makes it freely available to other academics or individuals as a way of contributing to the development of so-called "free software" or "open source" software. Non-contractual conduct is not covered by this Act. Remember, UCITA is the law in at least two states. Is it possible that the law-makers, involved in making the law about licences, would give half a chance to "non-contractual intellectual property notices", if they were convinced that such things could not exsist?
Gpland Posted May 6, 2004 20:32 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] >How dare you use the word "offer" and "invited" in a legal construction. You mean like in preamble of the GPL: We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Bob Young writes a letter to Darl Posted Dec 30, 2003 18:31 UTC (Tue) by Pani (guest, #18330) [Link] The SCO CEO Mcbride caused a cluster mess when he was at Pointserve, where he canned the existing business plan, then paid $$$$$ to outside consultants for a bogus business plan that made money off of "internet advertizing" yes pop-ups. (completly new direction for Pointserve, no way to make money either) I talked to him for a hour when I worked at Pointserve, he is All Smoke, Mirrors, and buzz words. He was eventually canned and Pointserve programmers left demoralized. Sorry SCO.
|
|||||||||||