8 ms·

Wow, again. Also found: > Now, putting it publicly on github qualifies as distribution, and therefore this code is also under the GPLv2 license implicitly. The

by maaaats 13y ago

Wow, again. Also found: > Now, putting it publicly on github qualifies as distribution, and therefore this code is also under the GPLv2 license implicitly. The act has already been done, and even if it does contain copyrighted bits by MS, the released version is now forever GPL. so, yeah.. by this logic I can take my company's code, put it on GitHub under a GPL license and now everyone is free to use it under GPL. Doesn't matter that I don't have the right to license it..

wisty 13y ago
I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.
- jdjb 13y ago
  I would love to hear Stallman's take on this.
- coldpie 13y ago
  Here's a couple of related answers at the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... Unfortunately, the question isn't really directly answered. The most relevant passage seems to be, "If the [unwittingly distributed] version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that." So I think a court would rule that the original leak does not qualify as "distribution," and thus the company is not required to distribute the source and everyone distributing the leaked code is under copyright violation.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.
    - read_again 13y ago
      Actually, you have to accept the license as a user to be able to use it. However, you don't give up your right to keep any change for yourself if you don't distribute it in a different format (e.g. binary). Whatever you do in your house is your business. That's probably what you meant (in spirit so to speak), though law wise it is very different.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        >Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Why do you say you have to accept it?
        anon1385 13y ago
        Because running software involves making copies of that software. This requires you to have permission from the copyright holder. The GPL provides you with that permission, without adding any further conditions if the copies are just for the purpose of running the software. http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html It is now well-accepted that copyright protects computer programs and other digital information, whether they are in readable source code form or are an executable program that is intended to be understood only by a computer. Copies are made whenever the program is transferred from floppy disk to hard disk or is read into the computer’s memory for execution, and those copies will infringe the copyright of the computer program if they are not permitted by the copyright owner or by copyright law.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
- chalst 13y ago
  Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freedom to change and redistribute). But these freedoms can only be granted by people who are in a position to say who gets to exercise those rights. That code might come with a GPL, but the license it grants is worthless, because the people who put it there have no connection to the copyright holders.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.
    - read_again 13y ago
      What chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL. The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code is not one of the granting processes defined by the GPL. Therefore, putting the GPL on that code is meaningless, whether it were GPLed initially or not.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        Isn't the GPL unilateral? If something is actually under the GPL, it shouldn't matter how it was obtained.
        Nursie 13y ago
        I don't think so, no. The GPL talks about a lot of transference of rights that take place during the act of distribution. If one does not have those rights to start with (the code was stolen, for instance) then it wouldn't apply.
        13y ago
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
stelonix 13y ago
I believe he means that, once the copyright on the code runs out (in 120 or whatever ridiculous number of years the copyright monopoly was able to extend further), that version, which is illegal right now (and not legally under the GPL) will automatically become GPL'd. This is an interesting take on copyright and licensing.

by maaaats 13y ago

wisty 13y ago

I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.

jdjb 13y ago
I would love to hear Stallman's take on this.
coldpie 13y ago
Here's a couple of related answers at the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... Unfortunately, the question isn't really directly answered. The most relevant passage seems to be, "If the [unwittingly distributed] version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that." So I think a court would rule that the original leak does not qualify as "distribution," and thus the company is not required to distribute the source and everyone distributing the leaked code is under copyright violation.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.
  - read_again 13y ago
    Actually, you have to accept the license as a user to be able to use it. However, you don't give up your right to keep any change for yourself if you don't distribute it in a different format (e.g. binary). Whatever you do in your house is your business. That's probably what you meant (in spirit so to speak), though law wise it is very different.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      >Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Why do you say you have to accept it?
      - anon1385 13y ago
        Because running software involves making copies of that software. This requires you to have permission from the copyright holder. The GPL provides you with that permission, without adding any further conditions if the copies are just for the purpose of running the software. http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html It is now well-accepted that copyright protects computer programs and other digital information, whether they are in readable source code form or are an executable program that is intended to be understood only by a computer. Copies are made whenever the program is transferred from floppy disk to hard disk or is read into the computer’s memory for execution, and those copies will infringe the copyright of the computer program if they are not permitted by the copyright owner or by copyright law.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
chalst 13y ago
Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freedom to change and redistribute). But these freedoms can only be granted by people who are in a position to say who gets to exercise those rights. That code might come with a GPL, but the license it grants is worthless, because the people who put it there have no connection to the copyright holders.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.
  - read_again 13y ago
    What chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL. The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code is not one of the granting processes defined by the GPL. Therefore, putting the GPL on that code is meaningless, whether it were GPLed initially or not.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Isn't the GPL unilateral? If something is actually under the GPL, it shouldn't matter how it was obtained.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        I don't think so, no. The GPL talks about a lot of transference of rights that take place during the act of distribution. If one does not have those rights to start with (the code was stolen, for instance) then it wouldn't apply.
      - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

stelonix 13y ago

I believe he means that, once the copyright on the code runs out (in 120 or whatever ridiculous number of years the copyright monopoly was able to extend further), that version, which is illegal right now (and not legally under the GPL) will automatically become GPL'd. This is an interesting take on copyright and licensing.