Very Computer

There has been much speculation on what rights and restrictions the GPL gives
and requires from you.

I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike what many
Winvocates seem to insist. Forget what people say. Forget what you have heard.
Read it for yourself at:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly limited, and no
right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a citizen) which is not
explicitly granted and legal.

The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very sound and
progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.

--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
------------------------
http://www.mohawksoft.com

Quote:> There has been much speculation on what rights and restrictions the GPL
gives
> and requires from you.

And much of the speculation is wrong. GPL is a remarkably clear legal
document, something that's uncommon these days. There are potential issues,
and it's never been tested in court (Business Week ran an article about it
around a year ago, as I recall, as part of an article about Red Hat), but in
a general sense it is very clear and easy to read. That anyone should
speculate about it speaks more about writer than of GPL.

It's really sad that something as easy to read as GPL isn't even given that
simple courtesy. Instead, opinions gush forth about what it says, often in
direct contradiction to the text.

GPL is only a few pages long. I suggest that anyone who says something like,
"GPL states that..." also publish the paragraph where it says "that". That
would end half the speculation.

The other half would be harder. Many posters believe that GPL says or
implies things that it doesn't say, and probably doesn't imply. For those
folks, there's probably not much that can be done. If someone believes GPL
says "White men can't jump," there probably isn't any proof - even the GPL
text - that's going to change their mind.

-- Mike --

I more or less agree with this sentiment, though where interpretation is
possible, I would also consider a quote from RMS as an authoritative
source on the *intended* meaning.

--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com

This is something I really dislike. Mainly because it treated as authoritative
when it is not.

RMS is a smart guy. Like many smart guys, what he says usually has meaning the
spreads across multiple sentences, even paragraphs. When he is quoted, you
seldom see more than a sentence or two.

More over, what RMS says is not authoritative because he is many things, but a
legal document he is not.

The published GPL is very clear and very specific. When we debate GPL we must
debate the license not what anyone says about the license.

--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
------------------------
http://www.mohawksoft.com

Quotes can be abused, so it's appropriate to provide a cite so the full
context is available.

Quote:>More over, what RMS says is not authoritative because he is many things, but a
>legal document he is not.

He is authoritative on the intended meaning of documents he authors.
This is true for anyone, not just RMS.

Basically, he "knows what he thinks he means", even if he is not an
authoritative source on the legal implications of his license.  

Moreover, while not authoritative on the law, I'd imagine he'd be pretty
knowledgeable on law *as it applies to the GPL*, and would have enlisted some
sort of legal counsel to assist in writing/editing legal documents.

--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com

Indeed. And you seem to have missed most of it.

Quote:> I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike what
> many Winvocates seem to insist.

You don't even know who you are arguing with!
Calling John Dyson or me winvocates is stupid.

Quote:> Forget what people say. Forget what you
> have heard. Read it for yourself at:

> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Read it and weep. If you understand it, of course.

Quote:> Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly limited,
> and no right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a citizen) which is
> not explicitly granted and legal.

There are a lot of rights specifically limited you seem to be too blind to
see.

Quote:> The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very sound
> and progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.

The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
handle distribution of software.

Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of the
work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system...".

Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
Internet explorer a major part of windows?

Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to go
by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have to be
conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel. Because
the GPL makes you do it.

--
Roberto Alsina

Really? What?

Quote:

> > I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike what
> > many Winvocates seem to insist.

> You don't even know who you are arguing with!
> Calling John Dyson or me winvocates is stupid.

I have not called anyone a "winvocate" I was merely referring to Winvocates, if
you think I was calling anyone in particular a winvocate, specifically you,
then you are mistaken.

Quote:

> > Forget what people say. Forget what you
> > have heard. Read it for yourself at:

> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

> Read it and weep. If you understand it, of course.

I'm not sure why you say this.

Quote:

> > Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly limited,
> > and no right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a citizen) which is
> > not explicitly granted and legal.

> There are a lot of rights specifically limited you seem to be too blind to
> see.

Name one which is not reasonable.

Quote:

> > The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very sound
> > and progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.

> The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
> document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
> handle distribution of software.

> Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of the
> work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system...".

> Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
> Internet explorer a major part of windows?

> Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to go
> by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have to be
> conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel. Because
> the GPL makes you do it.

The vagueness to refer too is almost impossible to avoid. An operating system
and its software is a very complex and changing environment. What constitutes a
major part of an operating system changes. There must be some vagueness to
allow advancements in technology.

As contracts go, it is pretty clear. I have read some real bad ones.

--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
------------------------
http://www.mohawksoft.com

I don't quite know, but you surely don't seem to get anything I have told
you. You are just repeating yourself instead of giving reasons.

Quote:>> > I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike
>> > what many Winvocates seem to insist.

>> You don't even know who you are arguing with!
>> Calling John Dyson or me winvocates is stupid.

> I have not called anyone a "winvocate" I was merely referring to
> Winvocates, if you think I was calling anyone in particular a winvocate,
> specifically you, then you are mistaken.

You are involved in a debate about the GPL, against me and others, who say
the GPL is not clear and reasonable.

Then you post this, and you expect us to believe you are referring to some
OTHER people who say the GPL is not clear and reasonable? I find that
disingenuous.

Quote:>> > Forget what people say. Forget what you
>> > have heard. Read it for yourself at:

>> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

>> Read it and weep. If you understand it, of course.

> I'm not sure why you say this.

Because I have read it. And I understood it.

Quote:>> > Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly
>> > limited, and no right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a
>> > citizen) which is not explicitly granted and legal.

>> There are a lot of rights specifically limited you seem to be too blind
>> to see.

> Name one which is not reasonable.

I am not allowed to link my huge app, licensed under the GPL, to a small
GPLd library and to a huge non-GPLd library, even if I declare an exception
for my own code, even if the small GPLd library has no contact with the
huge non-GPLd one.

Complex, but think GDBM/Qt/KDE app.

Quote:>> > The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very
>> > sound and progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.

>> The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
>> document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
>> handle distribution of software.

>> Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of
>> the work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or
>> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
>> the operating system...".

>> Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
>> Internet explorer a major part of windows?

>> Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to
>> go by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have
>> to be conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel.
>> Because the GPL makes you do it.

> The vagueness to refer too is almost impossible to avoid.

That's just an excuse.
There are dozens of free software licenses that are not vague.

--
Roberto Alsina

I disagree. Intended meaning carries little weight in a courtroom. It's a
legal document, and it has to stand on its own.

-- Mike --

Quote:> The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
> document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
> handle distribution of software.

> Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of
the
> work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system...".

> Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
> Internet explorer a major part of windows?

> Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to
go
> by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have to
be
> conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel. Because
> the GPL makes you do it.

Indeed, you make a good point, Roberto. Much of GPL is clear and
unambiguous, but there are potential pools of quicksand. There's also
section 10: "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to
ask for permission." It would appear that if I gain permission from the
original author to sell a version of program x, that section 10 implies that
I can sell program x regardless of all the contributions of others, who may
not want their code included in the sale of program x.

On the other hand, overspecification can be a disaster for a contract. If
you try to specify every possible condition under which the contract holds,
then every other condition may be considered not to hold.

This was part of what the article in Business Week talked about. As I
recall, the GNU folks indicated that they had found some violators, but also
said that they had been able to convince them to change their ways without
going to court.

Red Hat's annual report carries this warning, under "Risks Related to Legal
Uncertainty":
We could be prevented from selling or developing our products if the GNU
General Public License and similar licenses under which our products are
developed and licensed are not enforceable. ... We know of no circumstance
under which these licenses have been challenged or interpreted in court.
Accordingly, it is possible that a court would hold these licenses to be
unenforceable in the event that someone were to file a claim asserting
proprietary rights in a program developed and distributed under them. Any
ruling by a court that these licenses are not enforceable, or that
Linux-based operating systems, or significant portions of them, may not be
liberally copied, modified or distributed, would have the effect of
preventing us from selling or developing our products.

Their point seems clear, and it's the same thing Business Week was saying:
until it's been through the courts, nobody really knows for sure.

Any attorneys out there who'd like to offer a free (as in beer, naturally)
opinion?

-- Mike --

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I didn't say that RMS's
intent was authoritative in the courtroom, I was merely pointing out that
RMS is an authoritative source on his own intent.

--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com

There are actually two issues here:

A contract will be interpreted in the "environment" in which is agreed. The
environment is defined by the available public information about the terms used
in a contract. There is no legal definition, that I know of, about "computer
source code," but it is defined by the common language of the time, i.e.
environment.

The GPL references a web site. This web site contains much documentation which
can be used to settle ambiguity in contract interpretation. RMS standing on a
stand saying what he intended is meaningless. Documentation publicly available,
prior to your accepting the contract, is relevant.

The second issue is litigation. Do you want to risk litigation?

Someone should work on a license that is a pragmatic interpretation of the GPL.
On the surface, I love the GPL, when examined in the context of published RMS
arbitration of ambiguity, it is frightening.

--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
------------------------
http://www.mohawksoft.com

That would spoil the whole FUD around GPL, so it is not in the interests
of MS-controlled media.

--

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10.
Please update your programs.