Can a software licence in the English language only be valid if it specifies that it is governed by German law?
I've been told that the reverse isn't true: an English court would not normally consider a licensing agreement in German only that claimed to be under English law, without some special circumstances. I know even less about German law, so I'm hoping some kind soul on this list knows about this situation. Any pointers or references welcome.
This seems to be a common situation with European software. There was also the QPL which was in English and specified Oslo courts, but I care less about that right now.
There was a draft of something called the d-fsl published, which was in both English and German and was said to be seeking to satisfy all requirements of German law. Was being in German too part of that?
Thanks for reading,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:00:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Can a software licence in the English language only be valid if it specifies that it is governed by German law?
As far as I know for Germany: No. A license will also be valid when it is in another language. You might need to get a translation when you want to use it in court, but this depends.
There was a draft of something called the d-fsl published, which was in both English and German and was said to be seeking to satisfy all requirements of German law. Was being in German too part of that?
Not that I know.
Am Wednesday, dem 21. Sep 2005 schrieb MJ Ray:
Can a software licence in the English language only be valid if it specifies that it is governed by German law?
No.
See the netfilter case: http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html http://gpl-violations.org/news/20040519-iptables-sitecom.html
Thanks for the responses. I think I understand them. For this particular time, I think it's a shame that German law permits English-language agreements between two Germans, in a way, but it probably makes things simpler overall for free software.
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 18:06 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Thanks for the responses. I think I understand them. For this particular time, I think it's a shame that German law permits English-language agreements between two Germans, in a way, but it probably makes things simpler overall for free software.
As frontiers dilute more and more, the need for a global language arises.
English is probably the simplest of the most spoken languages (although by far not the most spoken), so it would be a shame if two people on one country couldn't make an agreement in another language because of the law.
The law is there to help the existence of justice, so it would be terribly unfair if there had to be a portuguese GPL for me to legally use most free software out there.
Hence, requiring it would be unjust.
Rui
On 27-Sep-2005, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
As frontiers dilute more and more, the need for a global language arises.
No more than the need for a global government. Languages are a very human activity; they appear, change, and adapt to the purposes they're put to.
English is probably the simplest of the most spoken languages
This must be some strange new usage of the word "simple" I hadn't previously been aware of.
(although by far not the most spoken), so it would be a shame if two people on one country couldn't make an agreement in another language because of the law.
English is not a global language; like most languages with large numbers of users, it is fractured into dozens of incompatible dialects. Unlike some other languages, there is no recognised authority saying what the language means. These two facts together make it a poor choice for legal documents intended to have global reach.
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 22:35 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
English is probably the simplest of the most spoken languages
This must be some strange new usage of the word "simple" I hadn't previously been aware of.
You don't speak Portuguese do you? It has many, many more syntax and semantic constructions than those you can easily create.
English grammar and semantics are way simpler than that of Portuguese, French or even German. :)
(although by far not the most spoken), so it would be a shame if two people on one country couldn't make an agreement in another language because of the law.
English is not a global language; like most languages with large numbers of users, it is fractured into dozens of incompatible dialects.
I think you greatly overestimate the number of incompatible dialects of english when faced against other languages (even ones that are more spoken over the world).
Rui
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org
English grammar and semantics are way simpler than that of Portuguese, French or even German. :)
I'm not sure about that claim, especially for French and doubly so for semantics. There are lots of subtleties to English which non-English users miss. Those can be the source of much humour, but we make fun of other English dialects too. Said in jest:
"It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him. German and Spanish are accessible to foreigners: English is not accessible even to Englishmen." -- from Preface to Pygmalion, Bernard Shaw
I think you greatly overestimate the number of incompatible dialects of english when faced against other languages (even ones that are more spoken over the world).
I suspect it depends what "incompatible" means. If it's not sharing some words, then my birth county (area ~2300km^2) has two or maybe three. $DEITY knows about England as a whole (area ~130000km^2).
ObTopic-ish, Catalan, Spanish, Irish, Dutch, Romanian, Swedish and pan-European English lists are hosted on mail.fsfeurope.org while French, Portuguese, German, UK-specific English and Dutch are on http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=fsfe - any plans to unify more? (I would be happy not to subscribe as "English (USA)" too.)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:42:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
ObTopic-ish, Catalan, Spanish, Irish, Dutch, Romanian, Swedish and pan-European English lists are hosted on mail.fsfeurope.org while French, Portuguese, German, UK-specific English and Dutch are on http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=fsfe - any plans to unify more?
This has technical reasons and historical reasons. We wanted to used Savannah more and unify the infrastructure. Savannah took a break after being broken into where we still needed infrastructure. Savannah and FSFE still could need more help by hackers with their infrastrucure.
(I would be happy not to subscribe as "English (USA)" too.)
Each list administrator can enable the installed languages for Mailman. E.g. fsfe-de has German enabled so you can select this. Other list administrators will have done the same I assume.
As far as I know there is no other English language sets for Mailman so far. (See http://www.list.org/i18n.html.) So if you want "English (EN)" you would need to create it first.
Bernhard
At Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:07:21 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:42:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
ObTopic-ish, Catalan, Spanish, Irish, Dutch, Romanian, Swedish and pan-European English lists are hosted on mail.fsfeurope.org while French, Portuguese, German, UK-specific English and Dutch are on http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=fsfe - any plans to unify more?
This has technical reasons and historical reasons. We wanted to used Savannah more and unify the infrastructure. Savannah took a break after being broken into where we still needed infrastructure. Savannah and FSFE still could need more help by hackers with their infrastrucure.
Not that I've a lot of time, but what's needed? I don't remember seeing anything about hackers/BOFHs on the FSFE website, only translators and webmasters.
(I would be happy not to subscribe as "English (USA)" too.)
Each list administrator can enable the installed languages for Mailman. E.g. fsfe-de has German enabled so you can select this. Other list administrators will have done the same I assume.
As far as I know there is no other English language sets for Mailman so far. (See http://www.list.org/i18n.html.) So if you want "English (EN)" you would need to create it first.
I think they should just drop the "(USA)" part.
Jeroen Dekkers
At Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:38:04 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
At Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:07:21 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:42:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
ObTopic-ish, Catalan, Spanish, Irish, Dutch, Romanian, Swedish and pan-European English lists are hosted on mail.fsfeurope.org while French, Portuguese, German, UK-specific English and Dutch are on http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=fsfe - any plans to unify more?
This has technical reasons and historical reasons. We wanted to used Savannah more and unify the infrastructure. Savannah took a break after being broken into where we still needed infrastructure. Savannah and FSFE still could need more help by hackers with their infrastrucure.
Not that I've a lot of time, but what's needed? I don't remember seeing anything about hackers/BOFHs on the FSFE website, only translators and webmasters.
One thing that comes to my mind is configuring spamassassin so it actually filters almost all spam, so moderator of mailinglist don't get pestered with easy to filter spam mails. Enabling greylisting would also be very nice.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
At Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:07:21 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Savannah and FSFE still could need more help by hackers with their infrastrucure.
Not that I've a lot of time, but what's needed?
A lot of smaller work all over the place, but it need regulars. You should talk to Georg or Jonas, if you are willing to help.
I don't remember seeing anything about hackers/BOFHs on the FSFE website, only translators and webmasters.
(I would be happy not to subscribe as "English (USA)" too.)
Each list administrator can enable the installed languages for Mailman. E.g. fsfe-de has German enabled so you can select this. Other list administrators will have done the same I assume.
As far as I know there is no other English language sets for Mailman so far. (See http://www.list.org/i18n.html.) So if you want "English (EN)" you would need to create it first.
I think they should just drop the "(USA)" part.
Suggest it to them. :)
Bernhard Reiter bernhard@intevation.de [...]
As far as I know there is no other English language sets for Mailman=20 so far. (See http://www.list.org/i18n.html.) So if you want "English (EN)" you would need to create it first.
I would, but I have created a patch for Mailman in the past and I have not been able to get any reply from the developers. Can anyone help me with this, please?
Thanks,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:00:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Bernhard Reiter bernhard@intevation.de [...]
As far as I know there is no other English language sets for Mailman=20 so far. (See http://www.list.org/i18n.html.) So if you want "English (EN)" you would need to create it first.
I would, but I have created a patch for Mailman in the past and I have not been able to get any reply from the developers.
Which patch or bug number? Or which URL?
Can anyone help me with this, please?
I think if you have an issue in their tracker, a few people might ask again or add their interest.
Bernhard Reiter bernhard@intevation.de
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:00:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I would, but I have created a patch for Mailman in the past and I have not been able to get any reply from the developers.=20
Which patch or bug number? Or which URL?
This one was accessibility-related: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1054944&gro...
Any help would be welcome,
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org
As frontiers dilute more and more, the need for a global language arises. [...]
Indeed. I really hope that it isn't English, because the English are too lazy at learning languages and that puts most of my homeland at a massive disadvantage! For example, the state's schools no longer teach non-English languages for all after 14 years old and still less than half of 7-11 schools teach them.
Monday is European Day of Languages. What will everyone do for it? http://www.ecml.at/edl/ (but not http://www.ecml.at/jel/ !)
By the way, it might also be unjust, if neither party involved in a dispute speaks the English of an agreement they both made with the involvement of a third party (the original work's licensor). If they didn't understand the agreement's wording, could they really consent? From this discussion, it seems so, although it should be translated early in a dispute.
Best wishes,
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
it would be a shame if two people on one country couldn't make an agreement in another language because of the law.
The law is there to help the existence of justice, so it would be terribly unfair if there had to be a portuguese GPL for me to legally use most free software out there.
There's confusion in this thread, and I think it started with the term "licensing agreements" being used in the initial question.
IANAL, but I don't think "licensing agreements" exist in law. Legal agreements exist, they're called contracts. Licenses exist, they're called licenses and they are one-way grants of rights.
Being clear about this matters because the GPL is a license (only). It is not an agreement, and it's not a contract.
At a guess, I'd say most countries allow licenses in any language, and I'd say some/many countries allow contracts only in an official language of the country.
Contracts bind people - like private laws (they're limited by constitutions, details of contract law, and judges). Allowing people to bind themselves without understanding what they're binding themselves too would probably be unjust. (I stuck in "probably" because exploring that would be off topic.)
Licenses don't bind people, so they're not as dangerous. Licenses grant you exceptions to the laws that already bind you. For example, the GPL grants you exceptions to copyright law (copyright law says "you can't copy", the GPL says "you are exempt from that - so you can copy - IF you also pass on these freedoms...". (The "IF" isn't a binding, it's a condition on a bonus.)
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?
Well, it's not that copyright licenses don't bind people; it's that the GPL only exercises rights that authors have been accorded control over. Authors under copyright policy have the unilateral right to stipulate certain terms for their works.
The GPL doesn't require consent and is not a contract because copyright doesn't require consent.
Some licenses are contracts, so they can be referred to as "license agreements." The GPL is not a license agreement, it's just a notice.
It's not as if the GPL found a magic category of the law that works without binding people. Rather, the GPL does bind people using the author's statutory right to control derivative works, and it binds them without their consent. It's just that the bind is to conditions that assure the code remains free.
Binding without consent sounds bad, but it's not, any more than copyright is. It's just that the GPL chooses to use copyright to invert itself. Recognizing that copyright could be used to impose freedom without requiring consent was a master stroke, that effectively subverts the whole trend toward contractually licensing things; i.e., authors setting whatever rules they feel like as if they had those rights, through the use of contracts.
Authors don't call all the shots for their works, at all. They call about 6 shots (in the U.S. code), which have been specifically accorded to them by statute. Those rights can be taken away by Congress, just as they have been granted by Congress. So the way other people try to create contractual license approaches, expanding copyright illegitimately, is subverted by the GPL's restricting itself to only the rights that are given to authors by statute.
This is also why RMS is cautious about proposals to change copyright law. He needs to make sure that the magic power of the GPL is not undermined by those proposals.
Seth
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
it would be a shame if two people on one country couldn't make an agreement in another language because of the law.
The law is there to help the existence of justice, so it would be terribly unfair if there had to be a portuguese GPL for me to legally use most free software out there.
There's confusion in this thread, and I think it started with the term "licensing agreements" being used in the initial question.
IANAL, but I don't think "licensing agreements" exist in law. Legal agreements exist, they're called contracts. Licenses exist, they're called licenses and they are one-way grants of rights.
Being clear about this matters because the GPL is a license (only). It is not an agreement, and it's not a contract.
At a guess, I'd say most countries allow licenses in any language, and I'd say some/many countries allow contracts only in an official language of the country.
Contracts bind people - like private laws (they're limited by constitutions, details of contract law, and judges). Allowing people to bind themselves without understanding what they're binding themselves too would probably be unjust. (I stuck in "probably" because exploring that would be off topic.)
Licenses don't bind people, so they're not as dangerous. Licenses grant you exceptions to the laws that already bind you. For example, the GPL grants you exceptions to copyright law (copyright law says "you can't copy", the GPL says "you are exempt from that - so you can copy - IF you also pass on these freedoms...". (The "IF" isn't a binding, it's a condition on a bonus.)
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?
-- Ciarán O'Riordan, ___________________/ Join the Fellowship of FSFE to http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ _/ support the campaigns against software ___________________________________/ patents and IPRED2 http://fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
Some licenses are contracts
I think there's a name for licenses that are contracts: "contracts"
no?
It's not as if the GPL found a magic category of the law
Obviously.
the GPL does bind people
That doesn't make sense. The GPL (like all licenses) is passive. At what point are the conditions of the GPL interesting? Only when the person wants to do something prohibited by law.
The person thinks "oh, I want to give a copy of this software to a friend". Copyright prohibits this act, so the person checks their license and sees "you can distribute if you make the source available".
If the person distributes without making the source available, they haven't followed the license, and they've plainly violated copyright law. They don't violate the license, because the license doesn't bind. They violate copyright law.
This is explained by Eben Moglen: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
In a follow-up mail, Seth Johnson continues:
To be more particular, the GPL doesn't actually grant you an exemption; it stipulates what kinds of derivative works you can produce from the work in question. It asserts a right in a certain way; it doesn't, in its formal legal structure, exempt you from the right.
All this sounds like juggling words around - and I didn't even say that the GPL "exempt[s] you from [a] right".
What you are describing -- "you are exempt if you also pass on freedoms" -- would require a contract.
I don't think I can see your point, or what you're trying to explain.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
Some licenses are contracts
I think there's a name for licenses that are contracts: "contracts"
no?
Sure. It's not a question of licenses = passive and contracts = active. Some licenses are automatic, and some licenses are agreements. An "automatically applying" license is not exactly what you ought to call "passive." The GPL is an "automatically applying" license. That is, it "just applies" just like copyright "just applies."
It's not as if the GPL found a magic category of the law
Obviously.
The point is in the remaining portion of that sentence.
the GPL does bind people
That doesn't make sense. The GPL (like all licenses) is passive. At what point are the conditions of the GPL interesting? Only when the person wants to do something prohibited by law.
The reason the GPL applies without consent is because copyright "just applies."
There are laws that "just apply." You don't consent to them. The GPL hangs its hat on that sort of law, specifically the copyright statutes.
The GPL asserts authorial rights, most essentially the right to control derivative works. That's the core trick of the GPL. It's a notice by the author of what you can do, because the author can do that.
The person thinks "oh, I want to give a copy of this software to a friend". Copyright prohibits this act, so the person checks their license and sees "you can distribute if you make the source available".
If the person distributes without making the source available, they haven't followed the license, and they've plainly violated copyright law. They don't violate the license, because the license doesn't bind. They violate copyright law.
This is explained by Eben Moglen: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
In a follow-up mail, Seth Johnson continues:
To be more particular, the GPL doesn't actually grant you an exemption; it stipulates what kinds of derivative works you can produce from the work in question. It asserts a right in a certain way; it doesn't, in its formal legal structure, exempt you from the right.
All this sounds like juggling words around - and I didn't even say that the GPL "exempt[s] you from [a] right".
{ For example, the GPL grants you exceptions to copyright law { (copyright law says "you can't copy", the GPL says "you are { exempt from that - so you can copy - IF you also pass on these { freedoms...".
What you are describing -- "you are exempt if you also pass on freedoms" -- would require a contract.
I don't think I can see your point, or what you're trying to explain.
The GPL doesn't require consent because copyright "just applies."
The trade in considerations you're describing (I give you exemptions if you pass on freedoms) would require a contract.
Seth
-- Ciarán O'Riordan, ___________________/ Join the Fellowship of FSFE to http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ _/ support the campaigns against software ___________________________________/ patents and IPRED2 http://fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
The reason the GPL applies without consent is because copyright "just applies."
No. The GPL is a valid grant of rights, even without consent, because it's only a grant of rights.
The GPL asserts authorial rights
No. Authors assert authorial rights.
, most essentially the right to control derivative works.
This is done by authors. And to be clear, derivatives aren't controlled, only the publication of derivatives are.
and I didn't even say that the GPL "exempt[s] you from [a] right".
{ For example, the GPL grants you exceptions to copyright law { (copyright law says "you can't copy", the GPL says "you are { exempt from that - so you can copy - IF you also pass on these { freedoms...".
...and note that the word "right" is not in the above paragraph.
The GPL exempts you from restrictions (mostly caused by copyright law), not rights.
I don't think I can see your point, or what you're trying to explain.
The GPL doesn't require consent because copyright "just applies."
I disagree that the mechanisms of the application of copyright is the reason why the GPL doesn't require consent.
For example, if copyright only applied when ownership was registered their ownership with a government, the GPL still wouldn't require consent from anyone.
The trade in considerations you're describing (I give you exemptions if you pass on freedoms) would require a contract.
I disagree. The GPL already does this. "You're prohibited from copying by copyright law, but you can copy (you're exempt from that restriction) if (or 'on condition that') you make the source available to recipients."
Obviously this could also be done by using a contract, but I disagree that a contract is required.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
The reason the GPL applies without consent is because copyright "just applies."
No. The GPL is a valid grant of rights, even without consent, because it's only a grant of rights.
You're veering into copyright = natural rights territory, now . . .
The GPL asserts authorial rights
No. Authors assert authorial rights.
:-)
Sure. The GPL is rights asserted by an author.
, most essentially the right to control derivative works.
This is done by authors. And to be clear, derivatives aren't controlled, only the publication of derivatives are.
and I didn't even say that the GPL "exempt[s] you from [a] right".
{ For example, the GPL grants you exceptions to copyright law { (copyright law says "you can't copy", the GPL says "you are { exempt from that - so you can copy - IF you also pass on these { freedoms...".
...and note that the word "right" is not in the above paragraph.
The GPL exempts you from restrictions (mostly caused by copyright law), not rights.
No. The GPL is a certain way of asserting rights. Yep, by an author.
I don't think I can see your point, or what you're trying to explain.
The GPL doesn't require consent because copyright "just applies."
I disagree that the mechanisms of the application of copyright is the reason why the GPL doesn't require consent.
That's the very key to the GPL.
For example, if copyright only applied when ownership was registered their ownership with a government, the GPL still wouldn't require consent from anyone.
The beauty of the GPL is that it doesn't assert that the rights in question are natural or fundamental ones; it simply asserts the statutory rights that are accorded by the law.
The trade in considerations you're describing (I give you exemptions if you pass on freedoms) would require a contract.
I disagree. The GPL already does this. "You're prohibited from copying by copyright law, but you can copy (you're exempt from that restriction) if (or 'on condition that') you make the source available to recipients."
The GPL is able to stipulate the freedoms and have them apply, because of its use of the author's statutory right to control derivative works.
Obviously this could also be done by using a contract, but I disagree that a contract is required.
Well, sure, the GPL manages it. But your explanation isn't really the explanation of how the GPL works.
Seth
-- Ciarán O'Riordan, ___________________/ Join the Fellowship of FSFE to http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ _/ support the campaigns against software ___________________________________/ patents and IPRED2 http://fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 27-Sep-2005, Seth Johnson wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
The GPL asserts authorial rights
No. Authors assert authorial rights.
:-) Sure. The GPL is rights asserted by an author.
No. The copyright notice is the assertion of rights. The GPL is a grant of license to others.
The GPL exempts you from restrictions (mostly caused by copyright law), not rights.
No. The GPL is a certain way of asserting rights. Yep, by an author.
The copyright statement is a way of asserting rights. The GPL is a way of granting specific freedoms -- i.e., license to perform certain acts.
Note that the GPL doesn't contain the copyright statement.
For example, if copyright only applied when ownership was registered their ownership with a government, the GPL still wouldn't require consent from anyone.
The beauty of the GPL is that it doesn't assert that the rights in question are natural or fundamental ones; it simply asserts the statutory rights that are accorded by the law.
It describes them, redundantly (section 5); the rights are asserted with the copyright statement from a particular copyright holder.
The GPL is able to stipulate the freedoms and have them apply, because of its use of the author's statutory right to control derivative works.
With the caveat of s/control derivative works/control further copying and distribution of derivative works/, I agree.
Ben Finney wrote:
On 27-Sep-2005, Seth Johnson wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
The GPL asserts authorial rights
No. Authors assert authorial rights.
:-) Sure. The GPL is rights asserted by an author.
No. The copyright notice is the assertion of rights. The GPL is a grant of license to others.
Based on the author's derivative works right. It describes how the author is asserting that right.
The GPL exempts you from restrictions (mostly caused by copyright law), not rights.
No. The GPL is a certain way of asserting rights. Yep, by an author.
The copyright statement is a way of asserting rights. The GPL is a way of granting specific freedoms -- i.e., license to perform certain acts.
The GPL does these things based on the author's derivative works right.
Note that the GPL doesn't contain the copyright statement.
For example, if copyright only applied when ownership was registered their ownership with a government, the GPL still wouldn't require consent from anyone.
The beauty of the GPL is that it doesn't assert that the rights in question are natural or fundamental ones; it simply asserts the statutory rights that are accorded by the law.
It describes them, redundantly (section 5); the rights are asserted with the copyright statement from a particular copyright holder.
Yes, it makes clear what basis it is standing on. The legal basis of the GPL is in the author's derivative works right, which "automatically applies" as the author stipulates, i.e., through the use of the GPL.
The GPL is able to stipulate the freedoms and have them apply, because of its use of the author's statutory right to control derivative works.
With the caveat of s/control derivative works/control further copying and distribution of derivative works/, I agree.
Yep.
Seth
-- \ "Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to | `\ recognize a mistake when you make it again." -- Franklin P. | _o__) Jones | Ben Finney ben@benfinney.id.au
Name: signature.ascsignature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Description: Digital signature
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
To be more particular, the GPL doesn't actually grant you an exemption; it stipulates what kinds of derivative works you can produce from the work in question. It asserts a right in a certain way; it doesn't, in its formal legal structure, exempt you from the right. What you are describing -- "you are exempt if you also pass on freedoms" -- would require a contract.
Seth
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Licenses don't bind people, so they're not as dangerous. Licenses grant you exceptions to the laws that already bind you. For example, the GPL grants you exceptions to copyright law (copyright law says "you can't copy", the GPL says "you are exempt from that - so you can copy - IF you also pass on these freedoms...". (The "IF" isn't a binding, it's a condition on a bonus.)
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?
-- Ciarán O'Riordan, ___________________/ Join the Fellowship of FSFE to http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ _/ support the campaigns against software ___________________________________/ patents and IPRED2 http://fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 02:24:08PM +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
IANAL, but I don't think "licensing agreements" exist in law. Legal agreements exist, they're called contracts. Licenses exist, they're called licenses and they are one-way grants of rights.
Being clear about this matters because the GPL is a license (only). It is not an agreement, and it's not a contract.
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?
I am also no expert in legal contract and licensing history, but I have heard that in some countries, e.g. Germany, licenses are indeed currently considered some special form of a contract. As far as I remember this is still under discussion so several opinions might exists, too.