Lutz Horn wrote:
"The software of this project is released under the GNU GPL but before you can download a copy you additionaly have to agree to so called 'Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen (AGB)' which on the project site is translated as 'general terms of business'."
The AGBs are important due to the German law. They explain among other how to interprete the GPL under the German law. This is because there exists no translation of the GPL and because the American and German law differ in e.g. in terms of the copyright law. Detail information can be found here: http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/publikation.html article: 10. Open Source Software and German Copyright Law
more information (German only) is available -on: http://www.campussource.de/opensource/docu_opensource/cs_siepmann1.pdf http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/publikation.html articles: 1-9
ILIAS is part of CampusSource (http://www.campussource.org/). CampusSource provides open source infrastructure software for the use of new media for teaching and learning at universities. The initiative decided for the GPL, but had to face the problem of the different laws. The server is operated in the CampusSource office and as the office we have to put up the AGBs. At the moment, we are translating the ABGs into English and it will soon be available.
Lutz Horn wrote:
"The licensee is obligated to carefully keep his password for the download area [of the web site] and not to disclose it to third parties. The licensee is liable for any damage which rise from a violation of this obligation of carefulnes." So why this sentence? What if I download the software and immediatly put it on my own web site for download without the need for registration? Even though I don't disclose my password, I make available all the additional information I got from registering at the original web site. The licenser could interpred this as a violation of the obligation quoted above.
We, as the people being responsible for our server, have to make sure that everybody who downloads the software from our server has accepted the AGB (our layer said). Third people, who accepted the AGBs, downloaded the software and who want to distribute the software themselves are only required to distribute the software under the GPL.
Under '5. Schutzrechte Dritter' the licenser states that according to his knowledge the software does not violate the rights of any third parties (in Germany). To keep it that way the licensse is obligated to (and again, my poor translation):
"not use the software for himself or under order of third parties for the purpose of searching for violation of third party rights",
"immediatly inform the licenser if third parties claim any rights",
"if the licensee has the imperssion that the software violates third party rights he is obligated to immediatly inform the licenser in written form about this violation including a detailed description of the act of violation. It is disallowed to the licensee to inform any other natural of legal entities without written permission of the licenser (about the violation of third party rights)."
"If any of the about obligations ('Nebenpflichten') is violated the licensee takes the obligation to pay compensation to the licenser for all damage done by the violation."
According to our layer this has to be there to prevent that people try to make money by purposefully looking for violations.
Reinhard Mueller wrote
One additional problem I see is: Will these AGBs be valid for people that get this software from somewhere else? They will probably never have seen them...
they are not valid for for people who get this software from somewhere else
Hi Sonja,
* Sonja Branskat Sonja.Branskat@FernUni-Hagen.de [20010531 15:46 +0200]:
Lutz Horn wrote:
"The licensee is obligated to carefully keep his password for the download area [of the web site] and not to disclose it to third parties. The licensee is liable for any damage which rise from a violation of this obligation of carefulnes." So why this sentence? What if I download the software and immediatly put it on my own web site for download without the need for registration? Even though I don't disclose my password, I make available all the additional information I got from registering at the original web site. The licenser could interpred this as a violation of the obligation quoted above.
We, as the people being responsible for our server, have to make sure that everybody who downloads the software from our server has accepted the AGB (our layer said). Third people, who accepted the AGBs, downloaded the software and who want to distribute the software themselves are only required to distribute the software under the GPL.
So if I get you right, you would not allow me to publish the password I received after accepting the AGBs since by that I'd enable third parties to get the software from _your_ server _without_ accepting the AGBs. Is that correct?
Under '5. Schutzrechte Dritter' the licenser states that according to his knowledge the software does not violate the rights of any third parties (in Germany). To keep it that way the licensse is obligated to (and again, my poor translation):
"not use the software for himself or under order of third parties for the purpose of searching for violation of third party rights",
[...]
According to our layer this has to be there to prevent that people try to make money by purposefully looking for violations.
May I ask, why? To play stupid: Why to you not want others to make money from looking for violations?
Reinhard Mueller wrote
One additional problem I see is: Will these AGBs be valid for people that get this software from somewhere else? They will probably never have seen them...
they are not valid for for people who get this software from somewhere else
So you allow me to distribute the software to people who actively search for patent violations? If I can distribute the software only under the GNU GPL without forcing third parties to accept the terms in the AGBs (includign the "Nebenpflichten") there is no way how you can prevent violations of the "Nebenpflichten" by persons who have never agreed to them due to receiving the software from me. If this is correct, why all the fuss about the AGBs in the first place?
Even more important is the question: If the above is _not_ true and you don't allow me to redistribute the software to persons who'll actively search for patent violations, doesn't these additional conditions make the software non free software?
I understand that you have to make certain precautions. But if you want to redistribute your software under the GNU GPL you should face the question concerning the freedom of your software. I doubt that the FSF(E) would accept a software made non free by additional conditions to be distributed under the GNU GPL.
Of course I can only speak for myself since I'm no member of the FSF or the FSFE. But as far as my understanding of the subject goes there are some difficulties which have not been resolved yet.
Regards Lutz
hi Lutz,
Lutz Horn wrote:
"The licensee is obligated to carefully keep his password for the download area [of the web site] and not to disclose it to third parties. The licensee is liable for any damage which rise from a violation of this obligation of carefulnes." So why this sentence? What if I download the software and immediatly put it on my own web site for download without the need for registration? Even though I don't disclose my password, I make available all the additional information I got from registering at the original web site. The licenser could interpred this as a violation of the obligation quoted above.
We, as the people being responsible for our server, have to make sure that everybody who downloads the software from our server has accepted the AGB (our layer said). Third people, who accepted the AGBs, downloaded the software and who want to distribute the software themselves are only required to distribute the software under the GPL.
So if I get you right, you would not allow me to publish the password I received after accepting the AGBs since by that I'd enable third parties to get the software from _your_ server _without_ accepting the AGBs. Is that correct?
This is correct.
Under '5. Schutzrechte Dritter' the licenser states that according to his knowledge the software does not violate the rights of any third parties (in Germany). To keep it that way the licensse is obligated to (and again, my poor translation):
"not use the software for himself or under order of third parties for the purpose of searching for violation of third party rights",
[...]
According to our layer this has to be there to prevent that people try to make money by purposefully looking for violations.
May I ask, why? To play stupid: Why to you not want others to make money from looking for violations?
As far as I understood this is because *we* would have to pay them, because we published software that violates the rights of any third parties. And believe me, we tried our best to verify that there are no violations - but with that many code (we offer at this time six software packages) we might have not seen everything.
Reinhard Mueller wrote
One additional problem I see is: Will these AGBs be valid for people that get this software from somewhere else? They will probably never have seen them...
they are not valid for for people who get this software from somewhere else
So you allow me to distribute the software to people who actively search for patent violations?
yes, you can. If someone finds anything, they will sue you as you distributed the software. You will not succeed in forwarding the trouble and the costs to us, as you accepted our AGBs.
If I can distribute the software only under the GNU GPL without forcing third parties to accept the terms in the AGBs (includign the "Nebenpflichten") there is no way how you can prevent violations of the "Nebenpflichten" by persons who have never agreed to them due to receiving the software from me. If this is correct, why all the fuss about the AGBs in the first place?
german law, adminsistration, making sure noone can claim us to have negliated our duties as a server operator in Germany.
Even more important is the question: If the above is _not_ true and you don't allow me to redistribute the software to persons who'll actively search for patent violations, doesn't these additional conditions make the software non free software?
I understand that you have to make certain precautions. But if you want to redistribute your software under the GNU GPL you should face the question concerning the freedom of your software.
to me understanding our software is completely GNU GPL licensed software. Our AGBs do not restrict any of the GPL terms.
I doubt that the FSF(E) would accept a software made non free by additional conditions to be distributed under the GNU GPL.
Of course I can only speak for myself since I'm no member of the FSF or the FSFE. But as far as my understanding of the subject goes there are some difficulties which have not been resolved yet.
Regards Lutz
regards
sonja
-- Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de For PGP information see header.
Sonja Branskat wrote:
Reinhard Mueller wrote
One additional problem I see is: Will these AGBs be valid for people that get this software from somewhere else? They will probably never have seen them...
they are not valid for for people who get this software from somewhere else
So you allow me to distribute the software to people who actively search for patent violations?
yes, you can. If someone finds anything, they will sue you as you distributed the software.
If, e.g. some copyright is violated in the software, AFAIK the author will be sued, not the distributor.
Even more important is the question: If the above is _not_ true and you don't allow me to redistribute the software to persons who'll actively search for patent violations, doesn't these additional conditions make the software non free software?
I understand that you have to make certain precautions. But if you want to redistribute your software under the GNU GPL you should face the question concerning the freedom of your software.
to me understanding our software is completely GNU GPL licensed software. Our AGBs do not restrict any of the GPL terms.
The following does -- though it might be only a minor issue in most cases, GPL does not allow for *any* further obligations.
: "Sofern der Lizenznehmer die Software bearbeitet und diese : Bearbeitung Dritten zug=E4nglich macht, ist er verpflichtet, dem : Lizenzgeber auch eine Kopie der Bearbeitung kostenlos zukommen zu : lassen, oder, sofern die Bearbeitung =F6ffentlich und kostenlos : zug=E4nglich ist, dem Lizenzgeber die Quelle mitzuteilen."
: ("If the licensee modifies the software and makes this : modification available to third parties, he is obligated to : make available a copy of the modification to the licenser at no : cost, or, if if the modification is available publicly and at : no cost, to inform the licenser about the source.")
IANAL, Frank
Hi Sonja,
* Sonja Branskat Sonja.Branskat@FernUni-Hagen.de [20010601 10:12 +0200]:
[Lutz Horn]
So you allow me to distribute the software to people who actively search for patent violations?
yes, you can. If someone finds anything, they will sue you as you distributed the software. You will not succeed in forwarding the trouble and the costs to us, as you accepted our AGBs.
Following Frank on that I don't think that the distributor is hold responsible for violation of third parties rights but the original author. But IANAL, too :-)
One more twist: What if I reveive the software from you after accepting the AGBs, distribute the software to a third person who makes some minor changes to it and again distributes the modified software back to me. Since I didn't force him to accept your AGBs he received the unmodified version from me only under terms of the GPL. He, too, is bound to distribute it under the GPL so I receive the modified version after accepting only the GPL. Any trave of your AGBs is gone at this point. Now I'm free to actively search for patent violations and do what ever I want if I find one.
Now you have two choices: a) you let it happen or b) you sue me for violating the AGBs. If you choose b) the software is not free.
But even more important than the "Nebenpflichten" is the term about the obligation to transfer a copy of any modified version of the software to you. As far as I understand the FSF(E) would consider this additional condition enough to make the software non free. You can of course argue that only those users are bound to follow this obligation who have received the software directly from you and that any third person receiving the software not directly from you is not bound by it. But, again, why this obligation in the first place?
Regards Lutz