---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:03:27 +0100 (CET) From: kim2@bruning.demon.nl To: Joerg Schilling schilling@fokus.gmd.de Subject: (C) yyyy Joerg Schilling (was: Re: your mail)
Hello,
I'm going to assume here that you have claimed your authorship rights and placed licence statements as reccomended in the GPL. If you didn't, you might be up a creek without a paddle. If you did, you have a very strong legal position. At least, that's what I gather from reading all the documentation on this. The most important thing to have is the line
(c) 2002, by Joerg Shilling , this code is licenced under the GNU Public Licence version 2 or at your option ...
etc...
= Executive Summary:
You see the (c)? That's *your* legal protection against people stealing your code. The GPL only grants people extra rights, which they wouldn't have if only the (c) was there.
These people don't want to comply with the GPL? That's fine. That's their option. They do *not* have any options on complying with the (c). The GPL does not apply here, as they did not agree with it. You can only obtain your right under the (c). Since they are stealing and admitting it, your legal position appears very strong indeed. Ask your lawyer for advice.
= End Of Summary
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Which brings us back to german Copyright or better "Authorship Right" basic and shows that you cannot enforce the arrangements from GPL itself.
Well, the GPL is not a magical silver bullet you know. All it does is allow people who want to play fair to use your software.
People who don't play fair simply don't get to use it. Or well, hardly anyway. They say they don't want to obey the GPL, right? Well, they don't have to. Nobody has to do anything with the GPL. You don't believe me? Well, ask that lawyer of yours!
So don't expect people to release their source to you if they don't want to. That's not what the GPL is for. :-)
Well... sort of. Let's go there in a minute.
First lets start with their infringement. If they don't want to play the GPL game, that's their choice. Not a problem. But anytime they distribute your code, they are in infringement of your Authors rights. Authors rights laws vary a bit from country to country... I live just west from you in l'il .nl :-). Anyway. The GPL is a licence, not a contract. They don't want to use the licence, fine. They still need to comply with german authors rights.
So just forget about the GPL here. They're breaking the law, and they're admitting it. Idiots! Go sic the lawyers on them! They will end up destroying every single copy and modified copy of your code, and paying a nice hefty fine to you. Some GPL programmes might be argued to have economic values of just about anything, damages might be an interesting subject. Sue them for damages! Do you have co-authors or co-contributors? Oh gosh, they get to sue too!
Sue them, sue them some more, and if they still exist after that, sue them into oblivion. They have no chance. Oh yeah, and breaking the law is bad for peoples reputation too.
Now what's this about sharing source and all that, that the GPL is on about? Well, that's for people who actually agree to abide by the licence. Everyone who abides by the GPL licence gets to share code among each other. People who don't abide by the GPL licence still get to look at the code, but they may not modify it or copy it, just like regular copyrighted code. They didn't agree with the licence, remember?
As you've noticed, some people still try, and then they find out that there is still the law to deal with.
Oops.
Now go and talk with the FSF Europes excellent German Lawyers (did I mention they were German Lawyers? They're German Lawyers!). You will probably have to hire them yourself, but you will also probably win rather dramatically.
Your current lawyer also seems pretty competent, but even really competent people can mix things up from time to time. Personally, I think you've managed to mix up your own lawyer by yourself. Even the most competent people will stray if you point them down the wrong path to begin with!
Your lawyer correctly points out that nothing in the entire world can get that company to give you their modifications if they really don't want to give them to you. The minute they try to sell those modifications to anyone else *then* they might have to give modifications to you too. I said *might*. They don't have to. They can do whatever they like instead. That's what the laws of physics say they can do.
Now at some point you can then get some kind of author rights infringement thing brought against them. _Then_ they'll have to _pay_ . The more they did whatever they liked, the more they'll have to pay.
That's what the laws of Germany do to them.
Have fun!
in the hope that this is useful read you soon, Kim "Sue! Sue! Sue!" Bruning
-- The GPL as read by the bad guys: "Resistence is futile, your code base will be merged with ours, you have no chance to survive, make your time!"
kim2@bruning.demon.nl writes:
You see the (c)? That's *your* legal protection against people stealing your code. The GPL only grants people extra rights, which they wouldn't have if only the (c) was there.
I don't think that in German law, you have to claim copyright in order to have it. Quite the contrary---you can't get rid of it even if you want to.
On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 22:24, Florian Weimer wrote:
You see the (c)? That's *your* legal protection against people stealing your code. The GPL only grants people extra rights, which they wouldn't have if only the (c) was there.
I don't think that in German law, you have to claim copyright in order to have it. Quite the contrary---you can't get rid of it even if you want to.
Same here (UK) - copyright automatically belongs to the author (unless this is changed under a contract - for example, if you're an employee of a software company). However, in the UK you're allowed to buy and sell copyright like any other commodity.
I think MJR is right with regards the (C) thing - you're supposed to write out the whole thing if you can't do a proper circle around it, i.e. Copyright XXXX The Author
Cheers,
Alex.
On 26 Jan 2002, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 22:24, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think that in German law, you have to claim copyright in order to have it. Quite the contrary---you can't get rid of it even if you want to.
Same here (UK) - copyright automatically belongs to the author (unless this is changed under a contract - for example, if you're an employee of a software company). However, in the UK you're allowed to buy and sell copyright like any other commodity.
That's logical. Different countries have slightly different laws on this. Since your free software programme is likely to be distributed to the ends of the earth, it's always better to be safe than sorry IMHO. :-)
I think MJR is right with regards the (C) thing - you're supposed to write out the whole thing if you can't do a proper circle around it, i.e. Copyright XXXX The Author
Right. I stand corrected there.
So: Even if you *don't* have any copyright notice in your source code, you may still be able to sue these people. It just gets better and better. :-P
I do think it makes life a bit easier if there is a Copyright yyyy Joerg Shilling in there. If only because you can just print your source, go to the judge and point: "Look! A Copyright Notice!". ;-)
It also makes things entirely clear to people who use your code. This is a Good Thing. (As an example: I still can't use a certain java system, because the authors haven't clarified their copyright position to me.)
With that correction, read back what else I wrote in that last mail. AFAIK application of GPL still applies as written.
in the hope this is useful, read you soon, Kim "Now correcter than ever!" Bruning
On 26 Jan 2002, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 22:24, Florian Weimer wrote:
You see the (c)? That's *your* legal protection against people stealing your code. The GPL only grants people extra rights, which they wouldn't have if only the (c) was there.
I don't think that in German law, you have to claim copyright in order to have it. Quite the contrary---you can't get rid of it even if you want to.
Same here (UK) - copyright automatically belongs to the author (unless this is changed under a contract - for example, if you're an employee of a software company). However, in the UK you're allowed to buy and sell copyright like any other commodity.
I think MJR is right with regards the (C) thing - you're supposed to write out the whole thing if you can't do a proper circle around it, i.e. Copyright XXXX The Author
If I remember correctly : The convention of Bern is taking care about the author right. Major country has signed this convention. So every author got the right for his creation.
As the GPL is using the copyright, the strict application of the Bern convention is ok. You should apply the copyright notice but it's not a obligation. The only thing to do : you must proove that you are the author of the software. (quite easy with publication...)
alx