Discussion about GPL in CC...for Andrew, Dann et al.

[smatovic]

To extract the issues about GPL in CC from the accusations in the Fire thread, here a new one...

my biased summary:

- does a program derived from GPL source automatically fall under GPL?
- what does distribution mean in context of GPL?
- what rights do I have as an end user in context of GPL?
- what rights do I have as an Copyright holder in context of GPL?
- what is the difference between Copyright, ideas, patents, EULA?
- what is the difference between civil and criminal law?

--
Srdja

[Dann Corbit]

To extract the issues about GPL in CC from the accusations in the Fire thread, here a new one...

my biased summary:

- does a program derived from GPL source automatically fall under GPL?

Yes, that is the primary intent of the GPL license. Strange as it may seem, that is why it is called a viral license, because everything that touches it gets the germ.

- what does distribution mean in context of GPL?

It means distributing it. I don't think that could be more clear.

- what rights do I have as an end user in context of GPL?

You have absolute rights to the source code as a user. That is the intent and purpose of the license. Anyone who says otherwise has no understanding whatsoever of the license. If you don't believe me ask Linus Torvalids.

- what rights do I have as an Copyright holder in context of GPL?

The same as any other copyright holder. You can sell your tool, and you can give it away. But if someone else uses it, they must adhere to the license

- what is the difference between Copyright, ideas, patents, EULA

Copyright protects your implementation. The exact words you typed creating your source code. But there are limits.
You cannot copyright math or tables or simple lists of facts.

- what is the difference between civil and criminal law?

Civil law, you must pay money.
Criminal law, you go to jail (or possibly pay money if the decision is a fine)

--
Srdja

Copyrigtht protects your implementation, but none of the ideas. If someone else writes an identical algrorithm, they do not infringe. But if they use your code, then they do infringe.

Patents protect the algorithm itself. It is the fundamental idea of how the process works. If someone has a patent on the algorithm, then nobody else can use that idea unless they pay royalties or otherwise satisfy the patent agreement.

Idea and patent are somewhat synonymous. I do not like software patents, but they are legal and so I obey them.

[Dann Corbit]

To extract the issues about GPL in CC from the accusations in the Fire thread, here a new one...

my biased summary:

- does a program derived from GPL source automatically fall under GPL?

Yes, that is the primary intent of the GPL license. Strange as it may seem, that is why it is called a viral license, because everything that touches it gets the germ.

- what does distribution mean in context of GPL?

It means distributing it. I don't think that could be more clear.

- what rights do I have as an end user in context of GPL?

You have absolute rights to the source code as a user. That is the intent and purpose of the license. Anyone who says otherwise has no understanding whatsoever of the license. If you don't believe me ask Linus Torvalids.

- what rights do I have as an Copyright holder in context of GPL?

The same as any other copyright holder. You can sell your tool, and you can give it away. But if someone else uses it, they must adhere to the license

- what is the difference between Copyright, ideas, patents, EULA

Copyright protects your implementation. The exact words you typed creating your source code. But there are limits.
You cannot copyright math or tables or simple lists of facts.

- what is the difference between civil and criminal law?

Civil law, you must pay money.
Criminal law, you go to jail (or possibly pay money if the decision is a fine)

--
Srdja

Copyrigtht protects your implementation, but none of the ideas. If someone else writes an identical algrorithm, they do not infringe. But if they use your code, then they do infringe.

Patents protect the algorithm itself. It is the fundamental idea of how the process works. If someone has a patent on the algorithm, then nobody else can use that idea unless they pay royalties or otherwise satisfy the patent agreement.

Idea and patent are somewhat synonymous. I do not like software patents, but they are legal and so I obey them.

[Dann Corbit]

EULA is a very complicated bird.
It means you do not own the software that you bought.
It is a complicated piece of crap invented by people who want to soak up your money and not give you anything of value.
I think it is why foss is gaining momentum.

[chrisw]

To extract the issues about GPL in CC from the accusations in the Fire thread, here a new one...

my biased summary:

- does a program derived from GPL source automatically fall under GPL?

Not necessarily. It depends on the meaning of the word "derived from". Which is not at all clear, despite amateur computer chess non-lawyers telling you the opposite.

- what does distribution mean in context of GPL?

Good question. The GPL is unclear, or, more precisely, muddies up the meaning. They added in "to the public", so probably sending minus GPL and minus source to testers, rating groups, friends, computer chess freaks is okay, as would making it available on a download site as long as that site was not specifically advertised to the public on a come and get basis. Of course the results of doing (any of) the above is that it gets copied by some of the above and spread around widely, but that would not be down to the author.

- what rights do I have as an end user in context of GPL?

You can use it.

- what rights do I have as an Copyright holder in context of GPL?

Good question. Nominally, the rights as set out in the GPL. But in practice the SF rights holders have permitted, done nothing about, whatever, the driving of a path several panzer divisions wide right through that GPL by standing aside as mobile platforms (is it Apple, not sure?) distribute countless millions, possibly billions of copies with absolutely no reference at all (or so I read, am I wrong?) to GPLs or source or anything else. If that is the case, all I have to go on is newsgroup ramblings here, that GPL is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

- what is the difference between Copyright, ideas, patents, EULA?

get a university degree at a top university, then two years lawyer training with secondment, then several years of experience working on high level cases, both sides, and you may be able to give an answer for the specific cases in hand. Your answer will probably be different to all the other expensively trained and experienced lawyers.

- what is the difference between civil and criminal law?

Criminal law has a battery of state controlled and funded organisations whose purpose and role is investigate, pursue, decide and punish breaches. They're called police, public prosecutors, law courts, prisons and so on.
Civil law is for private people and corporations and is the mechanism for society to enforce contracts and property rights and so on. If capitalist society has no accepted civil legal system for hearing and deciding disputes, then a Mafia steps in and enforces things like debt collection with clubs, guns and terror. Civil law exists to provide civilisation. The state does no more than provide (pay for) the judges and facilities for judges to hear cases. If a court decides and the party ordered to pay compensation then the state also provides an agency called Bailiffs or whatever, who 'perform' the debt collection or property seizure. Basically.
What we see on computer chess newgroups, since there is no actual way of "enforcing" what various interested parties would like enforced, you get a kind of Mafia setting itself up, and punishing the desired targets with hate, smears and public humiliation. Usually the Mafia don is a chess engine programmer who believes his moral authority, knowledge of law, the universe and everything, bla-bla etc etc is in direct proportion to his engine's Elo on CCRL list.

The question would be better framed "what is the difference between civil and criminal law and a self-appointed Mafia?"

--
Srdja

[MikeB]

<snip>
Civil law, you must pay money.
<snip>

Civil law remedies also include injunctions or restorations, e.g., stop distributing blah blah blah... and may not require any payment of money...

[MikeB]

<snip>
Civil law, you must pay money.
<snip>

Civil law remedies also include injunctions or restorations, e.g., stop distributing blah blah blah or give the blah blah blah property back ... and may not require any payment of money...

[syzygy]

To extract the issues about GPL in CC from the accusations in the Fire thread, here a new one...

my biased summary:

- does a program derived from GPL source automatically fall under GPL?

It does not. It is not how copyright works.

One way to see this immediately is to consider the case where you take the Stockfish code and add some code taken from non-GPL'd Crafty. Does Bob's code now fall under the GPL? Obviously not. He holds the copyright on his code, so only he can release his code under the GPL.

Now if Bob added his own code to Stockfish and placed his version of Stockfish on an FTP server, making it clear that this is a Stockfish-derived work, it would be reasonable to assume that it was Bob's intention to release the code under the GPL, even if he did not mention that explicitly.

On the other hand, if Bob took some code from Stockfish, added it to Crafty and released that new version of Crafty under the regular GPL-incompatible Crafty license, there would be no reason to assume that Bob intended to release his code under the GPL. It would simply be a violation of the copyright on the SF code.

Just because it is a copyright violation to release the code under a GPL-incompatible license does not mean the released code falls under the GPL. Just because it is forbidden to steal from a shop does not mean that walking out of the shop with items you didn't pay for creates a contract between you and the shop owner that gives you the right to those items in return for you paying for them. (If it did create a contract, it would not be stealing and there would be no crime. It would be a purely civil case about contractual obligations you did not yet fulfil. But obviously that is nonsense; it is very well possible to commit the crime of shoplifting and to end up getting criminally punished for that!)

- what does distribution mean in context of GPL?

It is limited by what acts would infringe . (The FSF even takes a narrower view of distribution by stating that intraorganizational distribution is not distribution within the meaning of the GPL. But the text of the GPL does not support this view.)

- what rights do I have as an end user in context of GPL?

You get permission to do the acts that are normally forbidden by copyright law provided you stick to the terms of the GPL.

- what rights do I have as an Copyright holder in context of GPL?

You don't receive any rights. By releasing something under the GPL, you give others permission to do the acts that are normally forbidden by copyright law provided they stick to the terms of the GPL. if they don't stick to those terms, they infringe your copyright and you can sue them.

- what is the difference between Copyright, ideas, patents, EULA?

Copyright protects (creative) expression.
Ideas are not protected by copyright. Their expression (in text, music, computer code) is protected provided there is some creative freedom in deciding how to express the idea.
Patents protect the application of ideas to solve (technical) problems
EULA = end-user license agreement. It is a license. (Usually a copyright license.)

- what is the difference between civil and criminal law?

Criminal law is usually about the state trying to punish you for committing a crime.
Civil law is usually about conflicts between private people.
In practice, copyright cases are civil cases. But in many countries intentional violation of copyright can qualify as a crime which in theory can be prosecuted by the state in criminal court.

[RubiChess]

Too much talk about legality, too little about morality imo.

[xr_a_y]

Too much talk about legality, too little about morality imo.

So true !