4 ms·

If that part of the GPL is invalid, wouldn't that leave anyone who wanted to distribute GPL-licensed software without a valid license to do so? It seems crazy t

If that part of the GPL is invalid, wouldn't that leave anyone who wanted to distribute GPL-licensed software without a valid license to do so? It seems crazy that it would leave intact the right to distribute given that as it's written that is contingent upon providing the source.

gmueckl 8y ago
[Please see edit below] My cursory understanding is that the GPL becomes more like the BSD or MIT license in that it becomes lawful to distribute altered binaries without the corresponding altered source code. However, legal texts are tricky and the correct interpretation of this one my well be different from my current understanding. Edit: ----- After rereading parargraph 1 another three times, I think that the wording of the text suggests a far broader scope than it actually covers. "...as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory." This part of the sentence limits the application of the rest of the paragraph to software that crosses the border into the country in some way or another. The sentence also begins with "No Party..." where parties are the countries (represented by their governments). So this is about government regulation of software that somehow gets into the country some way or another. " shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party" With all the preconditions above in mind, this actually means that no government can impose rules on somehow imported software that would require the seller in another country to provide the source code with the product. Effectively, this is only a restriction on lawmakers. Individual persons and companies are not directly affected this section of the treaty.
- bluGill 8y ago
  I believe you are wrong. If the license doesn't apply as written, then nothing in copyright law gives you any rights. GNU has always argued that if you don't accept the GPL, then your use of the software is pirating it under copyright law. That is the same consequence as would happen if I sold a library for money, but instead of buying from me you copied it. If you want to be evil and have written any GPL you can sue everybody in the target country that uses your software. Since the GPL isn't legal in their country residents of that country have no legal right to use your code. Note that you need to write "mass market software" for this to apply. Of course I'm not a lawyer, consult a lawyer if you need legal advice.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    Wait, what...? I don't understand how you draw this conclusion from my post.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  Unless it also removes that from all Australian laws, then there's no law to base GPL enforcement on. Remember: Treaties like this are backdoor ways to rewrite your countries' laws in ways that can't easily be undone by the future will of the people in changing their government.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    Have you read my whole post?
- otakucode 8y ago
  >as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory. >This part of the sentence limits the application of the rest of the paragraph to software that crosses the border into the country in some way or another. No, the word "or" is the operative one here. So if you deleted the word "import", it wouldn't matter. Yes, the law applies to imported software, but it also applies to any software which is distributed in its territory, or sold in its territory, etc. No border-crossing is necessary.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    You are ignoring the condition "person of another Party", aren't you?
    - otakucode 8y ago
      No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply not addressing it. I am specifically addressing the fact that in the case of "import, distribution, or sale of...", it is incorrect to interpret that to mean that it only applies to imported software. It applies to essentially all software.
      - gmueckl 8y ago
        No, not all software. Only software from a "person of another Party". This applies to sale and distribution the same way as it does to imports.
belorn 8y ago
Correct. I don't see how a license would turn into a universal permission if they suddenly made specific form of licenses illegal.

gmueckl 8y ago

[Please see edit below] My cursory understanding is that the GPL becomes more like the BSD or MIT license in that it becomes lawful to distribute altered binaries without the corresponding altered source code. However, legal texts are tricky and the correct interpretation of this one my well be different from my current understanding. Edit: ----- After rereading parargraph 1 another three times, I think that the wording of the text suggests a far broader scope than it actually covers. "...as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory." This part of the sentence limits the application of the rest of the paragraph to software that crosses the border into the country in some way or another. The sentence also begins with "No Party..." where parties are the countries (represented by their governments). So this is about government regulation of software that somehow gets into the country some way or another. " shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party" With all the preconditions above in mind, this actually means that no government can impose rules on somehow imported software that would require the seller in another country to provide the source code with the product. Effectively, this is only a restriction on lawmakers. Individual persons and companies are not directly affected this section of the treaty.

bluGill 8y ago
I believe you are wrong. If the license doesn't apply as written, then nothing in copyright law gives you any rights. GNU has always argued that if you don't accept the GPL, then your use of the software is pirating it under copyright law. That is the same consequence as would happen if I sold a library for money, but instead of buying from me you copied it. If you want to be evil and have written any GPL you can sue everybody in the target country that uses your software. Since the GPL isn't legal in their country residents of that country have no legal right to use your code. Note that you need to write "mass market software" for this to apply. Of course I'm not a lawyer, consult a lawyer if you need legal advice.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Wait, what...? I don't understand how you draw this conclusion from my post.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
Unless it also removes that from all Australian laws, then there's no law to base GPL enforcement on. Remember: Treaties like this are backdoor ways to rewrite your countries' laws in ways that can't easily be undone by the future will of the people in changing their government.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Have you read my whole post?
otakucode 8y ago
>as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory. >This part of the sentence limits the application of the rest of the paragraph to software that crosses the border into the country in some way or another. No, the word "or" is the operative one here. So if you deleted the word "import", it wouldn't matter. Yes, the law applies to imported software, but it also applies to any software which is distributed in its territory, or sold in its territory, etc. No border-crossing is necessary.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  You are ignoring the condition "person of another Party", aren't you?
  - otakucode 8y ago
    No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply not addressing it. I am specifically addressing the fact that in the case of "import, distribution, or sale of...", it is incorrect to interpret that to mean that it only applies to imported software. It applies to essentially all software.
    - gmueckl 8y ago
      No, not all software. Only software from a "person of another Party". This applies to sale and distribution the same way as it does to imports.

belorn 8y ago

Correct. I don't see how a license would turn into a universal permission if they suddenly made specific form of licenses illegal.