4 ms·

A few things: First, something general - one thing to keep in mind is that open source folks think of these things as license violations/etc, but that's not ac

A few things: First, something general - one thing to keep in mind is that open source folks think of these things as license violations/etc, but that's not actually a thing, legally. Breach of contract and copyright infringement are. That is how a claim would be analyzed. Not as a "GPL violation". Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. This is fairly relevant because: 1. The general view on GPLv2 is that you gain a shiny new license every time you receive a new copy from someone else. In other words, you have signed a new contract. So while your rights may have been terminated the existing contracted copy (and you would be liable for distributing or ... that one), if you just get a new copy from someone else, congrats, new contract. This is supported by the license: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Let's assume this was not true 2. Wordpress is actually GPLv2 or later. GPLv3 has a notice and cure period. Under GPLv3, they would still be within the cure period (unless i screwed up the timeframe :P), and would have not lost a license yet. 3. GPLV3 has a more complex termination mechanism to try to deal with notice, cure, and the issue in #1. In short, worst case, if they are claiming to use it as licensed by GPLv2, it would be fairly easy to cure the ability to distribute new copies. They could do nothing about violations that exist in existing copies (and would not be allowed to continue distributing those). I realize how insane this sounds, since it's basically saying "These bits over here are red but these same exact bits over here are green", but that's life in the legal realm sometimes. For sure, if they do nothing, explicitly, they would be in bad shape, legally, in the worst case. GPLv3 is a more complex question. Also: there are those that strongly disagree with the view in #1 and believe you lose all rights forever unless they are reinstated. Rather than try to say who is right or wrong, i tried to give you where general consensus seems to lie. That is not something you should take to court, it's closer to "if you surveyed 100 open source lawyers what would most think"

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
> Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. If you think about it in that way, copyright infringement is out of the picture completely because of the statutory exception. 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  Err, no. That statutory exemption was created to resolve one court case and one worry: 1. A holding that you can commit infringement simply by loading a program into memory even for maintenance purposes. This was MAI v. Peak, one of the earliest real court cases on software copyright infringement. It was unfortunately followed by lots of courts. 2. A worry that creating tape backups/etc of computers, and copies of software cd's (since they don't last forever) was copyright infringement independent of anything else. See the report for more details: https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-repor... Neither would eliminate infringement in this case.
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    WRT #2, note that the relevant section of 17 USC §117 was written in 1980 - at the time, most software was distributed on media like floppy discs or tape which could easily be accidentally overwritten or damaged by faulty equipment. Creating personal backups of purchased software was already standard practice for many users; I think it's this sort of usage that the law was primarily meant to protect. Later applications like allowing users to backup computer hard drives with copyrighted software installed on them were a happy accident.
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      Oh, yes, you are right. I misread the dates. I knew it was not because of a case, that the worry was around archival copies of software, and that (to this day) nobody had actually ever been sued over making a backup (as far as anyone knows). I should have dug a little deeper back into the history.
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    It would in the sense that mere use wouldn't count as infringement. Distribution is a different thing here and I agree there are more complex shenanigans there.
throwlicense 2y ago
Would it be a valid for someone to take "GPL v2" (with no or later version) clause, and re-license a derivative work as "GPL v2 or later", and then another entity takes that derivative work and re-licenses it as the "GPL v3"? That seems to be what's happened here. The b2 software is a strict "GPL v2". There is no later clause. Then WordPress has re-licensed their derivative work as "GPL v2 or later". Now we are talking about a GPL v3 derivative work.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

> Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. If you think about it in that way, copyright infringement is out of the picture completely because of the statutory exception. 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

DannyBee 2y ago
Err, no. That statutory exemption was created to resolve one court case and one worry: 1. A holding that you can commit infringement simply by loading a program into memory even for maintenance purposes. This was MAI v. Peak, one of the earliest real court cases on software copyright infringement. It was unfortunately followed by lots of courts. 2. A worry that creating tape backups/etc of computers, and copies of software cd's (since they don't last forever) was copyright infringement independent of anything else. See the report for more details: https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-repor... Neither would eliminate infringement in this case.
- duskwuff 2y ago
  WRT #2, note that the relevant section of 17 USC §117 was written in 1980 - at the time, most software was distributed on media like floppy discs or tape which could easily be accidentally overwritten or damaged by faulty equipment. Creating personal backups of purchased software was already standard practice for many users; I think it's this sort of usage that the law was primarily meant to protect. Later applications like allowing users to backup computer hard drives with copyrighted software installed on them were a happy accident.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    Oh, yes, you are right. I misread the dates. I knew it was not because of a case, that the worry was around archival copies of software, and that (to this day) nobody had actually ever been sued over making a backup (as far as anyone knows). I should have dug a little deeper back into the history.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  It would in the sense that mere use wouldn't count as infringement. Distribution is a different thing here and I agree there are more complex shenanigans there.

throwlicense 2y ago

Would it be a valid for someone to take "GPL v2" (with no or later version) clause, and re-license a derivative work as "GPL v2 or later", and then another entity takes that derivative work and re-licenses it as the "GPL v3"? That seems to be what's happened here. The b2 software is a strict "GPL v2". There is no later clause. Then WordPress has re-licensed their derivative work as "GPL v2 or later". Now we are talking about a GPL v3 derivative work.