scroll all the way down....
On 1/21/07, der.hans <
PLUGd@lufthans.com> wrote:
>
> Am 20. Jan, 2007 schwätzte Joshua Zeidner so:
>
> > On 1/20/07, Darrin Chandler <dwchandler@stilyagin.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Joshua,
> >>
> >> > 1) At some point in history the original designer released the
> code
> >> > under the GPL.
> >> > 2) Then reports indicate that he ceded his copyrights to the
> company
> >> > Japser Reports, Inc.( or somesuch name ).
> >> > 3) Now JasperReports has not technically changed the license, but
> >> they
> >> > feel that they can *grant the right to invalidate GPL terms*. This
> >> right is
> >> > bought as part of a service package.
> >> >
> >> > In my estimation the problem began at step 2. The author doesn't
> have
> >> any
> >> > rights over the code if he released it as GPL at step 1. It wasn't
> his
> >> to
> >> > sell or to alter in any way, it was granted to the public. The
> company
> >> > _does not have the right to change the terms of the GPL_ regardless
> of
> >> the
> >> > codes origin or their investment in its development.
> >>
> >> Step 2 is well within the rights of the original author. The original
> >> author retains ownership and all rights to the work, unless they assign
> >> them away. I don't believe it was ever intended that the GPL take these
> >> rights away from the author/copyright holder.
> >
> >
> > Just to clarify, you are claiming that the originator of a copyright
> that
> > is GPL licensed does have the right to change the license after it is
> > released as such?
>
> Yup. The owner of the copyright has a legal monopoly and can do a variety
> of things with the copyrighted work. For the granting of the monopoly
> there
> are supposed to be certain grants to those who 'purchase' the copyrighted
> work. That's where DMCA and the legislation Sony keeps pushing come in.
> The corporations are trying to take away the rights that are supposed to
> be granted to those buying the copyrighted work.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
>
> Just to clarify, I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV. I am also not
> a legal assistant and don't play one of them on TV either. Heck, I don't
> have a TV upon which I could play.
>
> > It seems that you are claiming that its GPL unless I agree to another
> > license. Why is a particular party privileged in this sense?
>
> You may use MySQL under the GPL. If you want to use it in a way not
> allowed under the GPL you are free to enter into a licensing agreement
> with the copyright holder in order to license the product under the
> conditions you need.
>
> I believe that license can prohibit you from ever again using the product
> under the GPL. I'm certain it can require you to wear orange socks on
> Thursdays. If you agree to it and it's legal you are bound by it. If it's
> not legal you are probably bound by all the parts that are legal.
>
> > The issue here is that GPL code is viewed as a public resource. When a
>
> To be honest, that's an incorrect view. The code is still explicity owned
> by the copyright holder. The copyright holder has been kind enough to
> release it under a license that allows us to use it.
>
> The answers to the first two questions at the following URL should help.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
>
> > company claims to have the right to grant special privileges to that
> > resource, they are impinging on the rights of the public. I can't have
> a
>
> If it's theirs they can do whatever is legally allowed. The GPL does not
> hold them back. They can't undo the GPL release, but they can refuse
> further releases and I think they can refuse to continue releasing the
> source code.
>
> If it's not theirs then the copyright holder needs to go after them. That
> is why the FSF suggests assigning them copyright. The FSF has the
> resources to go after copyright violators.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright
>
> > special privileged party with the ability to give market favor to a
> > competitor. At this point it ceased to be public resource, and
> according
> > popular conjecture has none of the positive qualities associated with
> Open
> > Source.
> >
> > It would appear that under this rubric, this scenario could arise:
> >
> > Developers Linus, Bob, and Tim are the 3 contributors to a popular OSS
> > kernel.
> > Each has the ability to sell the copyright to a company.
> > Linus, Bob and Tim decide to sell their copyright to a company they form
> > called Microsopht.
> > Microsopht now has the ability to grant special privileges, such as
> > commercial sale of the said kernel.
>
> To the parts that were copyright to Linus, Bob and Tim, yes. If there are
> parts not owned by Linus, Bob and Tim, then Microsopht won't necessarily
> be able to grant other licensing to those parts.
>
> If they're only using the GPL copy, I might be able to undercut their
> price, yet still charge.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
>
> I don't think I've seen this page before.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
>
> >> > They can even offer you that OTHER license in
> >> > >place of the GPL (people license their copyrighted works under
> >> different
> >> > >terms to different people all the time, and always have).
> >> >
> >> > But the key difference here is that the GPL is an agreement with the
> >> > public and describes specific terms, changing those terms, even if
> you
> >> are
> >> > the originator of the code is a violation of the GPL.
>
> No, it is not.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
>
> >> We're back to this, and it seems the rest of your post is about this,
> >> too. I don't believe this to be the case at all. You're thinking of the
> >> GPL similar to releasing something as public domain, where you formally
> >> give up all of your rights. My take on the GPL is that it's a licensing
> >> agreement between the copyright holder and anyone using the product or
> >> downloading the source. While rights are extended to the licensee (and
> >> obligations placed on the licensee), the rights are not "given up" by
> >> the copyright holder.
> >
> >
> >
> > What about situations where there are thousands of compounded commits by
> > hundreds of different people? Who holds the copyright in that
> case? Who
> > owns the copyright to the linux kernel?
>
> Each hold the copyright for their work ( or it's owned by whomever they've
> given it to ). This is why the FSF wants copyright assigned to the FSF for
> FSF software regardless of who has written it. It's also why Sun gets the
> agreement from developers before accepting code for OO.o.
>
> The Linux kernel is released only under the GPL version 2. I believe there
> are plenty of threads out there argueing about whether or not it can move
> to version 3 of the GPL should it be released.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater
>
> Just for fun :).
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy
>
> Please read the answers in that FAQ. They should take care of most of your
> questions.
>
> > I know there are some people here who know the GPL backwards and
> >> forwards, so PLEASE correct me or generally clear up anything I've left
> >> muddy.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned before, it is anyones guess how the GPL /will/ hold up in
>
> See info on GPL enforcement on the FSF site. I believe most software
> licenses have never been tested in court.
>
> > court. These kinds of list conversations have little bearing on million
> > dollar business decisions. My guess is that the rights of the public
> will
> > be increasingly infringed on until either 1) consensus is reached and
> some
> > kind of law is made 2) open source dies( oh the humanity! ).
>
> The public is getting more and more use of Free Software as more Free
> Software is developed. Dual-licensing is seen by some as one way of
> generating income to pay for the development.
>
> The real issues are laws removing our rights as consumers. Copyrights that
> last for hundreds of years, the DMCA, the legislation Disney and Sony keep
> pushing for (SSSCA?) and DRM are the real threats.
>
> I also think the plethora of licenses is an issue. There are seemingly
> dozens of $myproject Public License which are essentially copies of the
> *BSD license. They should just use the *BSD license and be done with it.
Yes, this was an issue that the OSI set out to reconcile. They had to
stop accepting new licenses because every project wanted to have its own
unique OSS license.
Thanks again Hans your input was very useful... jmz
--
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.
.0100. appeal.
JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant
++power; ++perspective; ++possibilities;
( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)