4 ms·

So what would you say if a company violated the GPL? (I'm not trying to antagonize, I just want to extend this thought experiment.) I'm guessing the argument

So what would you say if a company violated the GPL? (I'm not trying to antagonize, I just want to extend this thought experiment.) I'm guessing the argument is "Well a big legal entity of a company has access to lawyers and legal advice that would interpret the GPL and advise, whereas the average individual simply does not have that knowledge or resources." I think that makes sense? Not sure what happens in a court of law, obviously.

mikeash 10y ago
The GPL expands the licensee's rights. If they never agreed to the GPL then normal copyright terms apply, i.e. no redistribution of the work or of derived works outside of the limits of fair use.
ploxiln 10y ago
That's a common misconception about the GPL. You can use GPL software for yourself with no restrictions. The license requirements come when you redistribute the software. By the way, you can't redistribute copies of Windows arbitrarily either. In fact you can hardly redistribute it at all.
kakarot 10y ago
I can read the GPL and know immediately the limitations of anything invoking that license. I cannot do that with every single blackbox terms and services agreement. This is why I firmly believe the only way out of this mess is an international standard of common "service / license guarantees" and "terms and services" and hell, even "privacy policies" patterns that can be reused across software and services to immediately illuminate freedoms, limitations, and guarantees.
- derekp7 10y ago
  If I write a program, that launches (the GNU version of) /usr/bin/ls and uses its output, did I just create a derivative work of "ls"? What if I take the source code for "ls", turn it into a library, so that I could do the same thing but more directly -- the library is obviously a derivative work, but would my program that calls it also be a derivative? (note, in this case the hypothetical library would be GPL, not LGPL). And, if I want to link to a GPL (not LGPL) library, if I write a wrapper for it that turns it into a stand-alone executable (sort of like how you can call openssl functions, or you can run the openssl executable passing command line arguments), does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form not?
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > did I just create a derivative work of "ls"? No, output of a program isn't the program itself, so it doesn't fall under copyright[1]. Why would you expect that it would be a derivative work? It should be obvious that e.g. when gcc outputs a compiled program it doesn't automatically become tied to the GPL. The only exception - which is mentioned[2] in the GPL - is if the output of a GPL licensed program is part of the licensed program. (quines, other rare utilities) 2. Basic Permissions. [...] This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. [...] > would my program that calls [a library derived from GPL licensed program] also be a derivative? Probably[3], but see the FAQ[4] for answers to common situations and a real lawyer for actual legal advice. > does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form not? Correct. They are different. The intent is that the GPL licensed code is still open. Users that receive copies of the new stand-alone executable can exercise their right to examine and modify that code. They can easily replace it with a version they have modified without touching your other programs that merely use the output. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [4] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
    - derekp7 10y ago
      I wasn't expecting the output of 'ls' to be covered, however by making my program dependant on calling the 'ls' program, it could be that we now have a combined work of the two. Arguably, this is no different than calling a hypothetical "lib-ls" function, but if "lib-ls" is GPL (not LGPL), then that is usually considered a combined work. My point, however, wasn't these specific scenarios, I was using them as examples as examples in response to the parent's comment inferring that you know exactly what it means. "Consult a lawyer" kind of just reinforces the point. Of course, I do agree that most community licenses such as the GPL are infinitely more readable than most proprietary software licenses.
belorn 10y ago
Its a poor argument to blame "the fine print" if you enter a train without a ticket. When the default is no permission it is pretty common understanding that you can't do it unless granted permission. The legal argument around fair contracts is that a customer should not be tricked into agreeing to a unfair or hidden condition. For example, I can't sell a car and have a shrink wrap license that gives me permission to still use it after sale (ie, steal it back). Such contract condition would very fast be found to be illegal, and common sense say that a "sale" implies that I as a seller do no longer enjoy rights such as using the sold car after sale, regardless of trickery I might try with shrink wrap licenses. To go back to the GPL case, its not a unfair contract condition that you need copyright permissions to distribute a copyright protected work. For the first thing there is no contract, and the second reason is that the condition is created by society and not the copyright holder.
0x0 10y ago
A license to distribute software has nothing to do with an EULA, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Silhouette 10y ago
So what would you say if a company violated the GPL? I don't know the law where this particular action is being brought, but speaking generally, it's not unusual for different safeguards to apply for private citizens and for businesses. For better or worse, the situation where I am tends to heavily favour the private citizen when it comes to standard form contracts or other similar agreements with businesses, while businesses (no matter their size) are basically assumed to know what they're doing so it's their own fault if they agree to something they shouldn't. It's not a great analogy anyway, for the reasons others have already explained.
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
The GPL is not a license to possess and use. It is a legal hack that suspends copyright restrictions for those who comply with its terms. If you aren't distributing anything, the GPL (v2) has no bearing on what you do with the code.

mikeash 10y ago

The GPL expands the licensee's rights. If they never agreed to the GPL then normal copyright terms apply, i.e. no redistribution of the work or of derived works outside of the limits of fair use.

ploxiln 10y ago

That's a common misconception about the GPL. You can use GPL software for yourself with no restrictions. The license requirements come when you redistribute the software. By the way, you can't redistribute copies of Windows arbitrarily either. In fact you can hardly redistribute it at all.

kakarot 10y ago

I can read the GPL and know immediately the limitations of anything invoking that license. I cannot do that with every single blackbox terms and services agreement. This is why I firmly believe the only way out of this mess is an international standard of common "service / license guarantees" and "terms and services" and hell, even "privacy policies" patterns that can be reused across software and services to immediately illuminate freedoms, limitations, and guarantees.

derekp7 10y ago
If I write a program, that launches (the GNU version of) /usr/bin/ls and uses its output, did I just create a derivative work of "ls"? What if I take the source code for "ls", turn it into a library, so that I could do the same thing but more directly -- the library is obviously a derivative work, but would my program that calls it also be a derivative? (note, in this case the hypothetical library would be GPL, not LGPL). And, if I want to link to a GPL (not LGPL) library, if I write a wrapper for it that turns it into a stand-alone executable (sort of like how you can call openssl functions, or you can run the openssl executable passing command line arguments), does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form not?
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > did I just create a derivative work of "ls"? No, output of a program isn't the program itself, so it doesn't fall under copyright[1]. Why would you expect that it would be a derivative work? It should be obvious that e.g. when gcc outputs a compiled program it doesn't automatically become tied to the GPL. The only exception - which is mentioned[2] in the GPL - is if the output of a GPL licensed program is part of the licensed program. (quines, other rare utilities) 2. Basic Permissions. [...] This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. [...] > would my program that calls [a library derived from GPL licensed program] also be a derivative? Probably[3], but see the FAQ[4] for answers to common situations and a real lawyer for actual legal advice. > does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form not? Correct. They are different. The intent is that the GPL licensed code is still open. Users that receive copies of the new stand-alone executable can exercise their right to examine and modify that code. They can easily replace it with a version they have modified without touching your other programs that merely use the output. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [4] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
  - derekp7 10y ago
    I wasn't expecting the output of 'ls' to be covered, however by making my program dependant on calling the 'ls' program, it could be that we now have a combined work of the two. Arguably, this is no different than calling a hypothetical "lib-ls" function, but if "lib-ls" is GPL (not LGPL), then that is usually considered a combined work. My point, however, wasn't these specific scenarios, I was using them as examples as examples in response to the parent's comment inferring that you know exactly what it means. "Consult a lawyer" kind of just reinforces the point. Of course, I do agree that most community licenses such as the GPL are infinitely more readable than most proprietary software licenses.

belorn 10y ago

Its a poor argument to blame "the fine print" if you enter a train without a ticket. When the default is no permission it is pretty common understanding that you can't do it unless granted permission. The legal argument around fair contracts is that a customer should not be tricked into agreeing to a unfair or hidden condition. For example, I can't sell a car and have a shrink wrap license that gives me permission to still use it after sale (ie, steal it back). Such contract condition would very fast be found to be illegal, and common sense say that a "sale" implies that I as a seller do no longer enjoy rights such as using the sold car after sale, regardless of trickery I might try with shrink wrap licenses. To go back to the GPL case, its not a unfair contract condition that you need copyright permissions to distribute a copyright protected work. For the first thing there is no contract, and the second reason is that the condition is created by society and not the copyright holder.

0x0 10y ago

A license to distribute software has nothing to do with an EULA, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Silhouette 10y ago

So what would you say if a company violated the GPL? I don't know the law where this particular action is being brought, but speaking generally, it's not unusual for different safeguards to apply for private citizens and for businesses. For better or worse, the situation where I am tends to heavily favour the private citizen when it comes to standard form contracts or other similar agreements with businesses, while businesses (no matter their size) are basically assumed to know what they're doing so it's their own fault if they agree to something they shouldn't. It's not a great analogy anyway, for the reasons others have already explained.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago

The GPL is not a license to possess and use. It is a legal hack that suspends copyright restrictions for those who comply with its terms. If you aren't distributing anything, the GPL (v2) has no bearing on what you do with the code.