Peter Gerwinski peter@gerwinski.de writes:
However this fee must be nontrivial in order to compensate for the big lot of work which is necessary to produce the free software.
No. You should be paid for the programming, not the program.
MJ Ray wrote:
Peter Gerwinski peter@gerwinski.de writes:
However this fee must be nontrivial in order to compensate for the big lot of work which is necessary to produce the free software.
No. You should be paid for the programming, not the program.
The GPL says:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
This does not tell anything about the height of the fee.
According to German law, it you transfer a copy for a fee you _automatically_ provide warranty protection.
So you can in fact be paid for the program - i.e. for transferring a copy with (implicit or explicit) warranty protection.
Peter
Peter Gerwinski wrote:
According to German law, it you transfer a copy for a fee you _automatically_ provide warranty protection.
BTW: this is a big issue. AFAIK according to German (and Austrian) law, you automatically provide warranty protection of some sort even when you transfer a copy without a fee. This is probably also true in other countries. -- Reinhard Müller BYTEWISE Software GmbH A-6890 Lustenau, Enga 2 Tel +43 (5577) 89877-0 Fax +43 (5577) 89877-66 http://www.bytewise.at
BTW: this is a big issue. AFAIK according to German (and Austrian) law, you automatically provide warranty protection of some sort even when you transfer a copy without a fee. This is probably also true in other countries.
I think you're right on this. I've been told that here in Portugal only the only way to avoid having to provide warranty protection is to put the software in public domain (note: I never confirmed this). If this is like this in most other european countries, I think we just found the first lobbying task for FSFE: making the GPL legal in europe.
On Thu, 3 May 2001, João Miguel Neves wrote:
I think you're right on this. I've been told that here in Portugal only the only way to avoid having to provide warranty protection is to put the software in public domain (note: I never confirmed this). If this is
There is no 'Public Domain' in most European legislations. This is a term from the U.S. copryright law and not applicable elsewhere.
I recently read an article (by Axel?) about this and the bottomline is that you are only responsible for damages caused by software you offered gratis if you deliberately caused this damage (e.g. by distributing trojans) - this is pretty obvious and the same thing as in 'real' life. This is not the same as a warranty.
Putting a software on a public FTP server is therefore no problem.
ciao,
Werner
Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2001, João Miguel Neves wrote:
I think you're right on this. I've been told that here in Portugal only the only way to avoid having to provide warranty protection is to put the software in public domain (note: I never confirmed this). If this is
There is no 'Public Domain' in most European legislations. This is a term from the U.S. copryright law and not applicable elsewhere.
Does this mean you can't just give up your copyright around here? Or is it just not called PD then?
And when copyright expires after many years (I suppose that's the same here and there, even if the number of years may differ), the works are also in a kind of PD, or what's it like?
Frank
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Does this mean you can't just give up your copyright around here? Or
Correct. The authorship is an unalienable right like your own life. There is no way to give it up, you can of course give away the right to use your work.
And when copyright expires after many years (I suppose that's the same here and there, even if the number of years may differ), the works are also in a kind of PD, or what's it like?
IIRC, 70 years after the _death_ of the author. Yes, then it is a common good and everyone can take it up.
Werner
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:36:59PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
Does this mean you can't just give up your copyright around here? Or
Correct. The authorship is an unalienable right like your own life. There is no way to give it up, you can of course give away the right to use your work.
This isn't true as far as the UK is concerned. Authorship provides one (in _most_ circumstances :) with first ownership of copyright. However, that copyright can be sold/bought, as it is just a commodity - intellectual property. The rights to the work are assigned by the copyright holder, either first or subsequent, but ownership is always retained by the copyright holder unless transferred.
I would be interested to know, if authorship is inalienable elsewhere, how authors in those countries contribute to GNU projects where the copyright is assigned to the FSF? It was my understanding that for certain projects you must assign copyright for all non-trivial (10 line +?) patches to the FSF for them to be accepted?
IIRC, 70 years after the _death_ of the author. Yes, then it is a common good and everyone can take it up.
"Artisitic" work in the UK is covered for 70 years after the death of the last first copyright owner. Sound and broadcasts are covered for 50 years, and stuff that is "published" (not sure what that means legally tho' :) is covered for only 25. This only applies to works created in the UK, or another state in the EEA.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 02:18:01PM +0200, Klaus Schilling wrote:
Alex Hudson writes:
covered for only 25. This only applies to works created in the UK, or another state in the EEA.
Which law applies to software created by a Uk citizen and resident on a shell account in the United States?
I would imagine UK Law, since the author is resident in the UK at the time of creation, however, I would also suspect that the fee of various lawyers involved might also play a part in the determination :(
Cheers,
Alex.
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:05:40PM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:36:59PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
Does this mean you can't just give up your copyright around here?
Correct. The authorship is an unalienable right like your own life. There is no way to give it up, you can of course give away the right to use your work.
This isn't true as far as the UK is concerned. Authorship provides one (in _most_ circumstances :) with first ownership of copyright. However, that copyright can be sold/bought, as it is just a commodity
There are two different things here "authorship" and "copyright"; the first one is unalienable, but the second one can be assigned to others (it originally belongs to the author). A good place to read about it is http://www.loc.gov/copyright/, and notice that even works published in Europe, by people living in Europe, can be registered at the Library of Congress, because there are signed treaties among U.S.A. and European countries.
Cheers, Jaime
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 02:12:59PM +0100, Jaime E . Villate wrote:
This isn't true as far as the UK is concerned. Authorship provides one (in _most_ circumstances :) with first ownership of copyright. However, that copyright can be sold/bought, as it is just a commodity
There are two different things here "authorship" and "copyright"; the first one is unalienable, but the second one can be assigned to others (it originally belongs to the author).
Yes, but authorship buys you nothing except the original rights. Once copyright is transferred, authorship is fairly meaningless. "Moral rights", such as the right to be identified as the author of a computer program, don't apply (at least, not in the UK IIRC). Copyright is the important, overriding right with regards computer programs.
A good place to read about it is http://www.loc.gov/copyright/, and notice that even works published in Europe, by people living in Europe, can be registered at the Library of Congress, because there are signed treaties among U.S.A. and European countries.
Registration of copyright only entitles you to sue Americans though; you don't gain anything else :) As soon as you create the work, the work is copyrighted, whether you like it or not.
Cheers,
Alex.
Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Does this mean you can't just give up your copyright around here? Or
Correct. The authorship is an unalienable right like your own life. There is no way to give it up,
Then it's not like your life, because suicide is not punishable. ;-)
Seriously, if I write "public domain" in my code, it doesn't mean anything, and the next day I could say "just kidding, you may not even have looked at the code"? Or would it still be PD in America?
Frank
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Then it's not like your life, because suicide is not punishable. ;-)
No. An author can of course destroy his own work without any punishment. The thing is that you can't sell your life.
Seriously, if I write "public domain" in my code, it doesn't mean anything, and the next day I could say "just kidding, you may not
You don't give anyone in Germany a right to use this code, it is just the same as if you do not apply any license on it. With a statement like
(* * Copyright (C) 2001 Frank Heckenbach * * This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives * unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without * modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law; without even the * implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. *)
you are on the save side.
even have looked at the code"? Or would it still be PD in America?
I guess so.
Werner
Hello.
I recently read an article (by Axel?) about this and the bottomline is that you are only responsible for damages caused by software you offered gratis if you deliberately caused this damage (e.g. by distributing trojans) - this is pretty obvious and the same thing as in 'real' life. This is not the same as a warranty.
That's what my firend lawyer told me, some time ago. The "no warranty" clause of the GPL is not problem, as it is "to the extent permitted by applicable law".
For Italian law, like Werner suggests, you are liable if the damage you cause to the user is deliberate.
Putting a software on a public FTP server is therefore no problem.
Exactly.
As for whether the GPL is legal (question raised by Joseph Dalcolmo), my friend lawyer told me that in Italy it is. And when talking with Andrea Monto (a lawyer supporting open source/free software) he never told me licenses are a problem.
/alessandro
On 03 May 2001 11:28:26 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2001, João Miguel Neves wrote:
I think you're right on this. I've been told that here in Portugal only the only way to avoid having to provide warranty protection is to put the software in public domain (note: I never confirmed this). If this is
There is no 'Public Domain' in most European legislations. This is a term from the U.S. copryright law and not applicable elsewhere.
At least in the portuguese legislation there is (it's called 'domínio público') and is defined as the absence of any right over the work. A product enters public domain after copyright becomes invalid. There are exceptions: if you publish an original work even if it's in public domain, you get equivalent rights to copyright for 25 years.
According to what I've found, the portuguese legislation is based on (has been adjusted to) European Council Directive 93/98/CEE of 29/October. SO I would expect most EU countries to have something alike.
El Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:07:08AM +0100, João Miguel Neves deia:
I think you're right on this. I've been told that here in Portugal only the only way to avoid having to provide warranty protection is to put the software in public domain (note: I never confirmed this). If this is like this in most other european countries, I think we just found the first lobbying task for FSFE: making the GPL legal in europe.
There is a legal analysis of the GPL in the Spanish law by María de la Hoz del Olmo Navío La GPL dentro del ordenamiento jurídico español http://lucas.hispalinux.es/Presentaciones/200002hispalinux/conf-03/03-html/ It was presented in the hispalinux conference but I read it in the DLinux magazine http://www.portaldelinux.com (a printed 100% freely redistributable content magazine, ).
I haven't understood it much. it seems to say that there is some compulsory warranty and therefore you have to pay for damages caused by software that you make, sell or redistribute, even for free, whenever they are 1 - done on purpose, 2 - breaking the law, OR 3 - by your negligence (but aren't all bugs by negligence?).
She says the plaintiff would have it difficult to prove this and technical service may not be required to be included in the warranty, nor should you fix what the user has broken by misuse, but I really don't understand this part.
But the conclusion says that the GPL is usable in Spain.