3 ms·

I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be

by ekiru 16y ago

I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to confusion as in your comment. IANAL, but the following is my understanding based on the my lack of awareness of anyone licensing code as GPL (even the FSF) who has ever claimed that what you suggest is legal. Thesis is currently under whatever proprietary license Pearson distributes it under. He probably is legally required to distribute it only under the GPL. There are two obvious ways he can deal with this: stop distributing it or distribute it under the GPL. In the event that he takes the latter path, then people will be able to legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis. However, for now, no one has any license to Thesis' code other than what Pearson has granted them. The GPL can't force code to be released under the GPL. It can only forbid releasing it under other terms.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jp_sc 16y ago
The clause 5 of the GPL v2 says: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. **Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.** IANAL but it looks like Thesis could be implicitly GPL'ed.
- bad_user 16y ago
  You have to prove first that Thesis is a derivate work ... it might seem obvious to some, but it's better to ask a real lawyer or at the very least people with adequate paralegal experience ;)
- hristov 16y ago
  This is a good point, but honestly I doubt this particular provision will be enforced by the courts. If Thesis is to be held to this provision, it actually requires a contract formation, which means that the Thesis owners must have been aware of this GPL provision and must have intended to enter into a contractual relationship and all the other conditions of contract formations must have existed. This is really questionable. The Thesis owners could say that they were never aware of this provision and they never intended to be bound by it. Of course if they say that, they will not qualify under the GPL, which may mean they are guilty of copyright infringement (if they do use GPLed code). But it is still possible that they can hold this position and accept their copyright liability (or perhaps try to use other arguments to deny their liability under copyright law). And if they do hold this position and if you have copied the Thesis code, then you are yourself guilty of copyright infringement and have no excuse. So, I would not rely on section 5 of the GPL in this case. This is all academic discussion, none of this is legal advice, and if you are actually considering using the Thesis software, please consult your own attorney.

by ekiru 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jp_sc 16y ago

The clause 5 of the GPL v2 says: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. **Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.** IANAL but it looks like Thesis could be implicitly GPL'ed.

bad_user 16y ago
You have to prove first that Thesis is a derivate work ... it might seem obvious to some, but it's better to ask a real lawyer or at the very least people with adequate paralegal experience ;)
hristov 16y ago
This is a good point, but honestly I doubt this particular provision will be enforced by the courts. If Thesis is to be held to this provision, it actually requires a contract formation, which means that the Thesis owners must have been aware of this GPL provision and must have intended to enter into a contractual relationship and all the other conditions of contract formations must have existed. This is really questionable. The Thesis owners could say that they were never aware of this provision and they never intended to be bound by it. Of course if they say that, they will not qualify under the GPL, which may mean they are guilty of copyright infringement (if they do use GPLed code). But it is still possible that they can hold this position and accept their copyright liability (or perhaps try to use other arguments to deny their liability under copyright law). And if they do hold this position and if you have copied the Thesis code, then you are yourself guilty of copyright infringement and have no excuse. So, I would not rely on section 5 of the GPL in this case. This is all academic discussion, none of this is legal advice, and if you are actually considering using the Thesis software, please consult your own attorney.