Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:26:06 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015298766.e9775b@mired.org> To: GB Clark <gclarkii@vsservices.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: First test of GPL in court Message-ID: <15485.41806.266171.794325@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20020227201020.4cb07c8f.gclarkii@vsservices.com> References: <20020227122820.A64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227142005.A16555@energyhq.homeip.net> <20020227132417.B64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227052928.L12253@rain.macguire.net> <3C7D1454.6957B09E@mindspring.com> <p0510032db8a31e6f3943@[192.168.254.205]> <15485.30010.11477.928616@guru.mired.org> <20020227201020.4cb07c8f.gclarkii@vsservices.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
GB Clark <gclarkii@vsservices.com> types: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:09:30 -0600 > "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015286970.c6bf8f@mired.org> wrote: > > So should we root for the GPL to be found void as a contract, meaning > > that users don't have to abide by it? After all, that would provide a > > precedent for making all software licenses invalid as contracts. I > > wonder which side of this one MicroSoft would take. It would wound > > UCITA, possibly mortally. > Thats the LAST thing you want! If the GPL is found invalid, all code presently under it > reverts to standard copyright and you would have NO rights to do anything with it! No, you would have all rights provided as fair use and via the doctrine of first sale. Creating a translation for your own private use is perfectly legal. You could include excerpts of GPL'ed code into your own code without having to worry about it being infected by the GPL. You could be sued for copyright violation, but not be forced to open-source your own code, because that's not one of the legal remedies available for copyright violation. IANAL, and I haven't checked in a long time, but last time I checked, unless something was actually registered with the appropriate US agency, the only remedy allowed for copyright violation was damages. For books and the like, that means the profit on every copy illegally sold. But for software that you're willing to let other people have for nothing - well, clearly you haven't suffered any damages. > We would have to replace ALL GPL software in the tree, hard but not > impossible. I think Linux would die... The former has been advocated by others. It's not clear the latter would be a bad thing. I think more likely would be that the licensing would change in some way. The interesting things is what would happen to *commercial* software. You now have a precedent for the mutant offspring of copyright and contract law that most software comes bundled being unenforceable. This clearly makes UCITA useless anywhere except the smallest room in the house. It has interesting implications on the SSSCA as well. Basically, the entire software-as-a-commodity industry is based on being able to use copyright law to enforce a contract on the end user. The commercial content industry - basically, publishers of things you play that are now becoming available digitally - is using that as a basis for protecting their revenue streams, and trying to get laws passed that violate a number of amendments in order to keep people from talking - or even looking into - violating those licenses. Yanking the foundation out from underneath this structure makes it very shaky. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15485.41806.266171.794325>