Re: copyleft (was: Re: Owning a piece of my mind)

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

No, you can bargain with the FSF over GPL. They may say no deal. But you do get to look at the code, try to negotiate, and choose not to accept the licence. Which means you can't include the source or the product in your products.  It does not mean that you can't use emacs to edit your files, or run Linux on your computer.

Shrinkwrap applies to use by the end user, who agrees to the terms by virtue of opening the wrapper.  GPL has no implications for the end user. The end user can do whatever they want.  One can use Linux to build nuclear bombs. Saddam Hussein may use emacs to plot the takeover of the world. His plans are not subject to the GPL.   However, when he opens Microsoft World Domaination Simulator, he agrees not to do certain things.  If he doesn't agree, he is instructed to return it to Microsoft for a refund. ;-)

The only limitation which might possibly apply to the end user is if they want to give the GPL program to someone else. Technically, I suppose if you give a copy of linux to your friend, your friend could complain that you did not also give them the source, as required by GPL. Of course, you can respond with one of many ftp sites to comply with the GPL.  So I suppose that may be a similar to shrinkwrap.  However, I don't see that as a major problem.  Most commercial software prohibits one from giving copies to anyone. And this isn't the situation which most people who complain about the GPL are concerned with.

Typically, its a developer who wants to convert free code to private code. The other common case is the person who is afraid that if they develop code on linux or use gcc, that their code must be GPL'd or is subject to the GPL.  The first person is must keep their code separate from free code and utilize the LGPL. GPL code can't be converted to private ownership. The second person is wrong.

		--Dean

Around 12:04 PM 12/14/1999 -0500, rumor has it that Prof. Michael H. Davis said:
>I sense that I do not understand the real nature of the turf here, and
>so my comment may well be only peripheral to the underlying, apparently
>unstated, dispute. Whether the GPL "is" a shrink-wrap license depends
>upon what it is about shrink-wrap licenses that makes them significant
>or important. The shrink-wrap license, of course, is a contract, and is
>treated as a contract by the law. Its significance, in that sense, is
>that it is a one-sided contract, in the sense that, defying the
>underlying principles of contract law, it is reached without agreement
>by both parties--let alone bargaining. In that sense therefore, the GPL
>is a shrink-wrap license. The only distinctive thing about this shrink
>wrap is that it does not apply at the time of acquisition but at the
>time of distribution. But if what is distinctively important about the
>shrink wrap is not the time it applies, but the terms and conditions
>under which it becomes effective, you can see that this is no
>different--in the legal sense of whether it is a shrink wrap or not. Its
>terms apply whether or not the user wants those terms to apply. It
>applies without real consent--except by virtue of having
>used/distributed/sold it (other shrink wraps, of course are identical
>except they are effective by virtue of having acquired it). Maybe the
>important point here is not whether it is a shrink wrap but the
>fairness, or desirability, of its terms, but of course you know that no
>court is going to examine that because that would undermine ALL of
>contract law.
>
>I have the feeling that on the real issues here, Richard, as usual, is
>probably right. That he insists it is not a shrink wrap is a sign of
>some other dispute. I think at least one important difference (social or
>political, not legal) is the purpose to which it is being put. Of
>course, our legal system specifically excludes that factor, usually, in
>order to get other, usually oppressive, things accomplished. But, of
>course, it is important whether somebody uses a license to exclude
>openness and progress or whether they use it to promote those values.
>This doesn't depend upon whether the GPL is a shrink wrap, of course,
>which I believe it is, but unfortunately since the legal system doesn't
>give a damn about openness and progress, this may be the only peg upon
>which to hang the issue.
>
>Mickey Davis
>
>Richard Stallman wrote:
>> 
>>     The copyright or copyleft on General Public Licensed works
>>     is a standard copyright.  However, the license must be
>>     adhered to, else the user has no rights to redistribute the
>>     work (with restrictions) or reuse it.
>> 
>> Yes, that is a consequence of copyright law.
>> 
>>                                            Thus it is a sort
>>     of shrinkwrap license, similar to the ones that UCITA
>>     intends to enforce in some states.
>> 
>> No, it is not a shrink wrap license, nothing like that.  You've got
>> the picture entirely wrong.  Shrink wrap licenses are based on the
>> claim that the user has agreed to a contract by acquiring a copy.  The
>> GPL does NOT claim that the user has agreed to any sort of contract by
>> acquiring a copy.
>> 
>>       The GPL allows
>>     redistributing the work only under certain conditions.
>>     Thus it "infects" the work being distributed
>> 
>> This is based on a misunderstanding of the way the GPL works.
>> Actually, the situation is much simpler: my choice of the GPL affects
>> what you do with your program if it includes a substantial amount of
>> my code.
>> 
>>
>
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
           Plain Aviation, Inc                  dean@av8.com
           LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP          http://www.av8.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++