4 ms·

"(of course, free software licenses would still fulfil the important function of contractually requiring the publication of modified source code)" No no no. Li

"(of course, free software licenses would still fulfil the important function of contractually requiring the publication of modified source code)" No no no. Licenses are NOT contracts. Someone who copies or makes derivative works of copylefted software which they then distribute is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because they voluntarily promised, but because they don't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html

fredgrott 5y ago
and what pre-tell makes it a NON contract? License all by themselves are forms of contracts In fact the bill of rights is one
- roywiggins 5y ago
  You need to actively assent to a contract. Some software has contracts ("EULAs") but you are bound by the license whether you agree or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds?wprov=sfl...
  - adrusi 5y ago
    A license isn't a contract that binds the licensee, it's a contract that only binds the rightsholder. Since you, the licensee, are not relinquishing any rights in the contract, there's no need for you to agree to anything. The only rights being relinquished are the rightsholder's right to pursue legal retribution for some uses of their work that would otherwise be violations of copyright. You dont have to call it a contract, but it is a legal document in which one or more parties legally bind themselves, which seems like an adequate definition of a contract to me, and has more etymological fidelity to the word "contract" than other possible definitions that would exclude licenses. A contract is a legal instrument by which the breadth of your rights contract — as in become smaller.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Not trying to be snarky or rude, just letting you know the phrase is "pray tell", for your future reference.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
They're sort of contracts. If you do this, you get a copyright exemption; otherwise, you don't have the legal right to do anything.
- dominicjj 5y ago
  They have nothing to do with contracts and there's a simple test for it. When contracts are violated, then if there's litigation the parties consult the relevant contract law for how to proceed. When a license is violated, the parties consult whatever law the license was permitting an exception to. If you copy software without a license, you can be sued for copyright infringement. If you fish without a license, you can be sued for trespassing.
user5994461 5y ago
>>> No no no. Licenses are NOT contracts. Yes yes yes, licenses are contracts. That just got set in stone by the French appeal court and backed by a decision from the CJEU few months before (the European court of Justice). Case 19 March 2021 https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-2-arret-du-19-mars-2021/ https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-...
- dominicjj 5y ago
  Enjoy. I'm sure I'm not alone in completely ignoring the opinion of French judges and the European Court of Justice.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    If you don't care about what the courts say, I am not sure why you are making legal claims here. When it comes to legal matters, the only thing that matters is the opinion of the court system.
  - ben0x539 5y ago
    Just for context, the author of the article you're commenting on is Julia Reda, a EU copyright activist and a former member of the EU parliament. While I likewise don't have too much use for the legal opinion of French courts, I think we can afford to cut her some slack for focusing on legal interpretations in her native jurisdiction.
    - dominicjj 5y ago
      Fair enough. She is correct about licenses in her jurisdiction.
ghoward 5y ago
You are correct that they are not necessarily contracts, but they can be. (See https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/12/27/War-on-License-Notices.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/12/27/War-on-License-Not... and search for "Blue Oak avoids this theoretical complexity.")
hnfong 5y ago
OSS licenses, so far as they a permissive and require nothing in return, are not contracts. This is often the case for simply using the OSS software. The user has no obligations whatsoever. If, on the other hand, the licensor and licensee both have some obligations (in OSS, this is usually when you modify or redistribute the source or compiled product), then it's basically a contract, no matter what RMS claims. I mean, with all due respect to the guy, he makes controversial claims even in the field of software engineering (and also free software evangelism), his supposed professional field. Why would you trust what he says about contract law, a field where he has no professional training whatsoever? (That said, GPLv2 is still an ingenious work for many reasons, albeit lawyers probably won't draft it that way)
- luhn 5y ago
  That article isn't written by RMS, and the author has some relevant credentials. > Eben Moglen is professor of law and legal history at Columbia University Law School.
  - hnfong 5y ago
    You're right. I was mistaken -- I thought he was referring to those RMS claims that in general the GPL is not a contract. In Moglen's article about enforcement, I think he's right that where there's a breach of GPL there is no contract. In fact that's what I said also in my follow up reply.
- hnfong 5y ago
  PS: There's still a nuance that might require clarification(or am I adding confusion?) in your original quote though: Quote: "(of course, free software licenses would still fulfil the important function of contractually requiring the publication of modified source code)" Even though as many others have pointed out, OSS licenses can be contracts, I'm actually not sure this sentence is correct. When somebody uses the source code in compliance with the license terms, a contract might be formed to allow both parties to enjoy rights. However, if one party never complied with those terms and breaches them (eg. distributing source without retaining copyright notices), then arguably no contract was ever formed, and the act is a simple matter of copyright violation and not a "breach of contract". Hope I'm not splitting hairs. Disclaimer: learned English common law a bit, not a lawyer.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
detaro 5y ago
That's the US perspective on the matter, not globally applicable.

fredgrott 5y ago

and what pre-tell makes it a NON contract? License all by themselves are forms of contracts In fact the bill of rights is one

roywiggins 5y ago
You need to actively assent to a contract. Some software has contracts ("EULAs") but you are bound by the license whether you agree or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds?wprov=sfl...
- adrusi 5y ago
  A license isn't a contract that binds the licensee, it's a contract that only binds the rightsholder. Since you, the licensee, are not relinquishing any rights in the contract, there's no need for you to agree to anything. The only rights being relinquished are the rightsholder's right to pursue legal retribution for some uses of their work that would otherwise be violations of copyright. You dont have to call it a contract, but it is a legal document in which one or more parties legally bind themselves, which seems like an adequate definition of a contract to me, and has more etymological fidelity to the word "contract" than other possible definitions that would exclude licenses. A contract is a legal instrument by which the breadth of your rights contract — as in become smaller.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Not trying to be snarky or rude, just letting you know the phrase is "pray tell", for your future reference.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

They're sort of contracts. If you do this, you get a copyright exemption; otherwise, you don't have the legal right to do anything.

dominicjj 5y ago
They have nothing to do with contracts and there's a simple test for it. When contracts are violated, then if there's litigation the parties consult the relevant contract law for how to proceed. When a license is violated, the parties consult whatever law the license was permitting an exception to. If you copy software without a license, you can be sued for copyright infringement. If you fish without a license, you can be sued for trespassing.

user5994461 5y ago

>>> No no no. Licenses are NOT contracts. Yes yes yes, licenses are contracts. That just got set in stone by the French appeal court and backed by a decision from the CJEU few months before (the European court of Justice). Case 19 March 2021 https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-2-arret-du-19-mars-2021/ https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-...

dominicjj 5y ago
Enjoy. I'm sure I'm not alone in completely ignoring the opinion of French judges and the European Court of Justice.
- stale2002 5y ago
  If you don't care about what the courts say, I am not sure why you are making legal claims here. When it comes to legal matters, the only thing that matters is the opinion of the court system.
- ben0x539 5y ago
  Just for context, the author of the article you're commenting on is Julia Reda, a EU copyright activist and a former member of the EU parliament. While I likewise don't have too much use for the legal opinion of French courts, I think we can afford to cut her some slack for focusing on legal interpretations in her native jurisdiction.
  - dominicjj 5y ago
    Fair enough. She is correct about licenses in her jurisdiction.

ghoward 5y ago

You are correct that they are not necessarily contracts, but they can be. (See https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/12/27/War-on-License-Notices.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/12/27/War-on-License-Not... and search for "Blue Oak avoids this theoretical complexity.")

hnfong 5y ago

OSS licenses, so far as they a permissive and require nothing in return, are not contracts. This is often the case for simply using the OSS software. The user has no obligations whatsoever. If, on the other hand, the licensor and licensee both have some obligations (in OSS, this is usually when you modify or redistribute the source or compiled product), then it's basically a contract, no matter what RMS claims. I mean, with all due respect to the guy, he makes controversial claims even in the field of software engineering (and also free software evangelism), his supposed professional field. Why would you trust what he says about contract law, a field where he has no professional training whatsoever? (That said, GPLv2 is still an ingenious work for many reasons, albeit lawyers probably won't draft it that way)

luhn 5y ago
That article isn't written by RMS, and the author has some relevant credentials. > Eben Moglen is professor of law and legal history at Columbia University Law School.
- hnfong 5y ago
  You're right. I was mistaken -- I thought he was referring to those RMS claims that in general the GPL is not a contract. In Moglen's article about enforcement, I think he's right that where there's a breach of GPL there is no contract. In fact that's what I said also in my follow up reply.
hnfong 5y ago
PS: There's still a nuance that might require clarification(or am I adding confusion?) in your original quote though: Quote: "(of course, free software licenses would still fulfil the important function of contractually requiring the publication of modified source code)" Even though as many others have pointed out, OSS licenses can be contracts, I'm actually not sure this sentence is correct. When somebody uses the source code in compliance with the license terms, a contract might be formed to allow both parties to enjoy rights. However, if one party never complied with those terms and breaches them (eg. distributing source without retaining copyright notices), then arguably no contract was ever formed, and the act is a simple matter of copyright violation and not a "breach of contract". Hope I'm not splitting hairs. Disclaimer: learned English common law a bit, not a lawyer.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

detaro 5y ago

That's the US perspective on the matter, not globally applicable.