5 ms·

>I actually don't really support these movements. I would prefer that we entirely deligitimize the notion of 'terms of service' having any measure of enforceabi

>I actually don't really support these movements. I would prefer that we entirely deligitimize the notion of 'terms of service' having any measure of enforceability or weight. > No, I have not read your terms and I do not agree with them. I do, however, reject the legitimacy of their use and will happily check a box that lets me proceed unmolested. Do you feel the GPL should be enforceable based on the header comments in GPLed source code?

gpm 9y ago
The GPL isn't a contract (in the FSF's opinion anyways), it doesn't restrict any of your rights, it simply grants you a few more. (E.g. to make copies as long as you follow certain rules) If the GPL was a contract that tried to restrict your rights, then putting in header comments should not make it enforceable.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > If the GPL was a contract that tried to restrict your rights, then putting in header comments should not make it enforceable. Suppose I modified and distributed GPL code in a compiled binary, without making my modifications available in source form. Suppose also I claim that I didn't notice any header comments or LICENSE.TXT files. On what grounds would the licensor claim that I had agreed to the terms of the GPL? I'm just pointing out that people who don't think click-through TOS should be enforceable would be inconsistent to simultaneously opine that the GPL should be enforceable simply because it's packaged in text form along with the code.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    If you didn't agree to the terms of the GPL then you simply have no right to use the code in the first place, no?
    - Spivak 9y ago
      Technically if you don't agree with the terms then you are still able to use the code. An end user can't really violate the GPL.
      - giancarlostoro 9y ago
        If they don't make derivative code based on GPL'd code available that would be a violation provided it's software you've downloaded and installed, you have the right to it's source.
        lmm 9y ago
        The person who's violating the GPL is the person who copied and distributed someone else's code (an action that's normally illegal), not the end user.
        giancarlostoro 9y ago
        The GPL doesn't make you give the source out to everyone, look into Redhat Linux, used to be only customers got the source (and rightfully so!) eventually they made it available to everyone would such a company have been violating the GPL all that time? Doubtful... The GPL states that if they have access to the binaries, if the end-user asks for the source it must be made available in some form, even if not directly available. Hence the BMW source request from a year or so ago, and BMW wound up opening up their code to everyone afterwards, but IIRC they sent the first person to request the code a CD of some sort in compliance. The fun twist is, say I buy GPL'd software whose code is only released to customers cause they're the only ones running the GPL'd software, I have the full rights to re-release the software to anyone and make changes as well. This allows the software to live on.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - gpm 9y ago
    The licensor can't claim that you agreed to the terms of the GPL, he can merely claim you committed copyright infringement by creating a derivative work of, and creating copies of, a copyrighted work, without permission.
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    The difference between the two is that of community standards, in the community of people who click-through TOS and the corporations who publish them it is widely known that nobody reads and does not consider any requirements might apply - the behavior of everyone involved seems to indicate they don't care; among the community of people who use open source it is widely understood that the code will have some sort of license and you should check what it is - companies have open source policies about how you use licenses etc, there seems to be lots of community agreement that these things are important. The two things are different and it is not hypocritical to note that.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  ToS don't restrict your rights, either; they simply grant you the limited right to access the service/site/whatever. I don't really agree with this line of argument, but if it's valid for the GPL, why not ToS?
  - Spivak 9y ago
    My interpretation would be that software licenses like the GPL can really only be violated by people and companies that have the capacity to understand them. Asking a layperson to sift though some sites ToS is a burdensome expectation.
  - gpm 9y ago
    I have access to whatever site by virtue of the site responding to my requests. In the absence of the ToS I can do whatever I want and the ToS serve to restrict that. In the absence of the GPL I can do a strict subset of what I can do when the GPL is applied.
  - lmm 9y ago
    I don't need to agree to any terms to be able to make web requests and receive responses. That's just a normal, legal thing to do on the internet. The GPL is valid because it grants you license to do something that would otherwise be illegal i.e. make copies of a copyrighted work.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  >The GPL isn't a contract (in the FSF's opinion anyways), it doesn't restrict any of your rights, it simply grants you a few more. (E.g. to make copies as long as you follow certain rules) Didn't a court rule a few months ago that it was a contract?
  - gpm 9y ago
    Looks like one did, specifically they ruled that it was both a license and a contract, here's an article on it [0]. I think that just like the ToS example it shouldn't be counted as a contract, and I feel reasonably confident saying leggomylibro feels the same. This isn't a legal judgment on the current state of the law (which I'm not qualified to make), but a moral judgment that contracts shouldn't be able to be created like that. https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-...
mortehu 9y ago
This question is actually covered by GPL itself, in section 9, "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.": > You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
leggomylibro 9y ago
Well yes, but mostly because things that are licensed under the GPL are generally done so to allow someone to read and learn from them while still acknowledging their commercial value. Also, software licenses are often standardized and available in common language. If I use a GPL-licensed library, I'm going to be reading it pretty thoroughly. I need to deeply understand how to work with it. It's fair to expect that a developer look at 'LICENSE.md' as well as 'README.md,' when the license generally falls into one of about a half-dozen easy-to-understand categories. But hey, that's me. 'People' as big as fucking Qualcomm ignore the GPL in the same way that I ignore a TOS, and nobody's cut off their service yet. I'd appreciate if they did, because following the metaphor they are abusing the service in a way that impacts other users, but c'est la vie.

gpm 9y ago

The GPL isn't a contract (in the FSF's opinion anyways), it doesn't restrict any of your rights, it simply grants you a few more. (E.g. to make copies as long as you follow certain rules) If the GPL was a contract that tried to restrict your rights, then putting in header comments should not make it enforceable.

rhapsodic 9y ago
> If the GPL was a contract that tried to restrict your rights, then putting in header comments should not make it enforceable. Suppose I modified and distributed GPL code in a compiled binary, without making my modifications available in source form. Suppose also I claim that I didn't notice any header comments or LICENSE.TXT files. On what grounds would the licensor claim that I had agreed to the terms of the GPL? I'm just pointing out that people who don't think click-through TOS should be enforceable would be inconsistent to simultaneously opine that the GPL should be enforceable simply because it's packaged in text form along with the code.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  If you didn't agree to the terms of the GPL then you simply have no right to use the code in the first place, no?
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Technically if you don't agree with the terms then you are still able to use the code. An end user can't really violate the GPL.
    - giancarlostoro 9y ago
      If they don't make derivative code based on GPL'd code available that would be a violation provided it's software you've downloaded and installed, you have the right to it's source.
      - lmm 9y ago
        The person who's violating the GPL is the person who copied and distributed someone else's code (an action that's normally illegal), not the end user.
        giancarlostoro 9y ago
        The GPL doesn't make you give the source out to everyone, look into Redhat Linux, used to be only customers got the source (and rightfully so!) eventually they made it available to everyone would such a company have been violating the GPL all that time? Doubtful... The GPL states that if they have access to the binaries, if the end-user asks for the source it must be made available in some form, even if not directly available. Hence the BMW source request from a year or so ago, and BMW wound up opening up their code to everyone afterwards, but IIRC they sent the first person to request the code a CD of some sort in compliance. The fun twist is, say I buy GPL'd software whose code is only released to customers cause they're the only ones running the GPL'd software, I have the full rights to re-release the software to anyone and make changes as well. This allows the software to live on.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- gpm 9y ago
  The licensor can't claim that you agreed to the terms of the GPL, he can merely claim you committed copyright infringement by creating a derivative work of, and creating copies of, a copyrighted work, without permission.
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  The difference between the two is that of community standards, in the community of people who click-through TOS and the corporations who publish them it is widely known that nobody reads and does not consider any requirements might apply - the behavior of everyone involved seems to indicate they don't care; among the community of people who use open source it is widely understood that the code will have some sort of license and you should check what it is - companies have open source policies about how you use licenses etc, there seems to be lots of community agreement that these things are important. The two things are different and it is not hypocritical to note that.
pmiller2 9y ago
ToS don't restrict your rights, either; they simply grant you the limited right to access the service/site/whatever. I don't really agree with this line of argument, but if it's valid for the GPL, why not ToS?
- Spivak 9y ago
  My interpretation would be that software licenses like the GPL can really only be violated by people and companies that have the capacity to understand them. Asking a layperson to sift though some sites ToS is a burdensome expectation.
- gpm 9y ago
  I have access to whatever site by virtue of the site responding to my requests. In the absence of the ToS I can do whatever I want and the ToS serve to restrict that. In the absence of the GPL I can do a strict subset of what I can do when the GPL is applied.
- lmm 9y ago
  I don't need to agree to any terms to be able to make web requests and receive responses. That's just a normal, legal thing to do on the internet. The GPL is valid because it grants you license to do something that would otherwise be illegal i.e. make copies of a copyrighted work.
PrimHelios 9y ago
>The GPL isn't a contract (in the FSF's opinion anyways), it doesn't restrict any of your rights, it simply grants you a few more. (E.g. to make copies as long as you follow certain rules) Didn't a court rule a few months ago that it was a contract?
- gpm 9y ago
  Looks like one did, specifically they ruled that it was both a license and a contract, here's an article on it [0]. I think that just like the ToS example it shouldn't be counted as a contract, and I feel reasonably confident saying leggomylibro feels the same. This isn't a legal judgment on the current state of the law (which I'm not qualified to make), but a moral judgment that contracts shouldn't be able to be created like that. https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-...

mortehu 9y ago

This question is actually covered by GPL itself, in section 9, "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.": > You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

leggomylibro 9y ago

Well yes, but mostly because things that are licensed under the GPL are generally done so to allow someone to read and learn from them while still acknowledging their commercial value. Also, software licenses are often standardized and available in common language. If I use a GPL-licensed library, I'm going to be reading it pretty thoroughly. I need to deeply understand how to work with it. It's fair to expect that a developer look at 'LICENSE.md' as well as 'README.md,' when the license generally falls into one of about a half-dozen easy-to-understand categories. But hey, that's me. 'People' as big as fucking Qualcomm ignore the GPL in the same way that I ignore a TOS, and nobody's cut off their service yet. I'd appreciate if they did, because following the metaphor they are abusing the service in a way that impacts other users, but c'est la vie.