3 ms·

They do not get a license, so they couldn't even legally download the new copy. It's the same as downloading pirated Windows (except that when downloading pira

by bonzini 12y ago

They do not get a license, so they couldn't even legally download the new copy. It's the same as downloading pirated Windows (except that when downloading pirated Windows the hosting site shares the blame with the downloader, of course).

maxerickson 12y ago
Why does only section 4 apply and not section 6? Is there case law resolving the situation, or are you giving your interpretation, or ...?
- hugoroy 12y ago
  All sections apply. It's just that the original comment misunderstood what section 6 says. This is the only way to read section 6 coherently with section 4 and the rest of the license. Sure, it's an interpretation. [edit] the point is: nowhere as clear as the original comment expresses.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    You have yet to point out any misunderstanding or why this is wrong past saying "that makes the license crappy in some ways". Which may in fact, be true. But this is a policy argument, not a legal one, and it will absolutely never win in court over very clear and unambiguous text. This is, as i said, why GPLv3 was revised here.
hugoroy 12y ago
They could still download a new copy, but they would not have the right to modify, reproduce and distribute that copy.
- bonzini 12y ago
  As far as I know, without a license, you do not even have the right to make a copy (i.e. download) or use it.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Except they get one from section 6. You are reading who is giving who a license wrong. Redhat, or whoever they download from, is the "you" there. Not the person who license was terminated. So let's fill in the blanks: 6. Each time Redhat redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the company who violated the license automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. All i did was replace the word "you" and "recipient" with the right people. This is clear and unambiguous. You may not like the result. I actually don't like the result. It does not change the legal meaning, or whether you'd win. But you don't have to take my word for it, ask another open source lawyer, they'll tell you the same thing i just did.
    - bkuhn 12y ago
      It's odd you keep saying "all open source lawyers" agree with you, because I can't figure out who you could possibly mean. Like, which specific human being do you believe agrees with you? I've studied copyleft almost daily for two decades, and I'm aware of the position of nearly anyone who has ever called themselves an "open source lawyer" in the world, so one would think I'd know who you are talking about since I "know them all" and I can't figure out who I could ask that would give me the same argument as you give. The only lawyers I find who agree with your position (and, BTW, they agree with it for completely different reasons than you state, and I suspect they wouldn't agree with your reading of v2 Section 6) are a few lawyers in Germany. I thus find myself in the odd situation of having to defend your trolling a bit, because Till Jaeger, Christoph's lawyer in the VMware case, has indeed stated publicly that he believes you can regain a license under GPLv2 by coming into compliance and redownloading in Germany. However, this is likely specific to Germany because no other legal expert I've ever met who has studied this issue has argued it works anywhere else in the world. This point is therefore salient insofar as this thread is discussing a copyright case in Germany. But, as I wrote in the copyleft.org footnote I referred to earlier, the issue is just an esoteric legal detail except in the case of proprietary relicensing business models. Community-oriented GPL Enforcement Organizations always restore rights anyway once the violator achieves compliance, so the final impact of both interpretations ends up the same in most enforcement actions, unless of course your goal is to abhorrently use strict termination to extort gobs of money, in which case, this detail matters a lot.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Sorry, but no. They get all the rights. The rights auto-terminate if they are still violating the license (so they lose that license). If they have cleaned up their act, they gain all rights. I can't even see how you would come to the conclusion you did, given it says "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. " IE it very specifically says they get the rights you claim they don't.
DannyBee 12y ago
Sorry, but you are completely and utterly wrong. I wish you weren't. Section 6 is amazingly clear, and this is completely and totally unambiguous. I don't remember if Eben disagrees (I actually don't think he does, last I remembers), but it's generally accepted that this is the likely outcome.

by bonzini 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

Why does only section 4 apply and not section 6? Is there case law resolving the situation, or are you giving your interpretation, or ...?

hugoroy 12y ago
All sections apply. It's just that the original comment misunderstood what section 6 says. This is the only way to read section 6 coherently with section 4 and the rest of the license. Sure, it's an interpretation. [edit] the point is: nowhere as clear as the original comment expresses.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  You have yet to point out any misunderstanding or why this is wrong past saying "that makes the license crappy in some ways". Which may in fact, be true. But this is a policy argument, not a legal one, and it will absolutely never win in court over very clear and unambiguous text. This is, as i said, why GPLv3 was revised here.

hugoroy 12y ago

They could still download a new copy, but they would not have the right to modify, reproduce and distribute that copy.

bonzini 12y ago
As far as I know, without a license, you do not even have the right to make a copy (i.e. download) or use it.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Except they get one from section 6. You are reading who is giving who a license wrong. Redhat, or whoever they download from, is the "you" there. Not the person who license was terminated. So let's fill in the blanks: 6. Each time Redhat redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the company who violated the license automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. All i did was replace the word "you" and "recipient" with the right people. This is clear and unambiguous. You may not like the result. I actually don't like the result. It does not change the legal meaning, or whether you'd win. But you don't have to take my word for it, ask another open source lawyer, they'll tell you the same thing i just did.
  - bkuhn 12y ago
    It's odd you keep saying "all open source lawyers" agree with you, because I can't figure out who you could possibly mean. Like, which specific human being do you believe agrees with you? I've studied copyleft almost daily for two decades, and I'm aware of the position of nearly anyone who has ever called themselves an "open source lawyer" in the world, so one would think I'd know who you are talking about since I "know them all" and I can't figure out who I could ask that would give me the same argument as you give. The only lawyers I find who agree with your position (and, BTW, they agree with it for completely different reasons than you state, and I suspect they wouldn't agree with your reading of v2 Section 6) are a few lawyers in Germany. I thus find myself in the odd situation of having to defend your trolling a bit, because Till Jaeger, Christoph's lawyer in the VMware case, has indeed stated publicly that he believes you can regain a license under GPLv2 by coming into compliance and redownloading in Germany. However, this is likely specific to Germany because no other legal expert I've ever met who has studied this issue has argued it works anywhere else in the world. This point is therefore salient insofar as this thread is discussing a copyright case in Germany. But, as I wrote in the copyleft.org footnote I referred to earlier, the issue is just an esoteric legal detail except in the case of proprietary relicensing business models. Community-oriented GPL Enforcement Organizations always restore rights anyway once the violator achieves compliance, so the final impact of both interpretations ends up the same in most enforcement actions, unless of course your goal is to abhorrently use strict termination to extort gobs of money, in which case, this detail matters a lot.
DannyBee 12y ago
Sorry, but no. They get all the rights. The rights auto-terminate if they are still violating the license (so they lose that license). If they have cleaned up their act, they gain all rights. I can't even see how you would come to the conclusion you did, given it says "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. " IE it very specifically says they get the rights you claim they don't.

DannyBee 12y ago

Sorry, but you are completely and utterly wrong. I wish you weren't. Section 6 is amazingly clear, and this is completely and totally unambiguous. I don't remember if Eben disagrees (I actually don't think he does, last I remembers), but it's generally accepted that this is the likely outcome.