6430187
story
Comments: 521 +- Developers: Doubts Raised About Legal Soundness of GPL2 on Thursday October 15, @11:28AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprogramming.gif); width:80px; height:48px;
programming
svonkie writes "Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) is legally unsound. They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software. 'If you go back in time to when GPLv2 was written, I don't think people were aware of just how ubiquitous this license would become and how closely scrutinized it would be,' said Mark Radcliffe, partner at the firm DLA Piper and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 'At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now.' Radcliffe was joined by Karen Copenhaver, partner at Choate Hall & Stewart and counsel for the Linux Foundation, for a GPL web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software"
Related Stories
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Informative)
The article essentially says that the terminology used needs more rigorous definition, and needs to match more closely with the existing legal terminology. For example, their use of "derivative work" might have legal connotations that don't completely follow from the terms of the licence. It's not like they've determined there's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down, as you see in EULAs for example.
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like they've determined there's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down, as you see in EULAs for example.
Right. Which strikes me as interesting that they'd suggest "upgrading" from a distribution license (GPLv2) to a EULA (AGPLv3). Remember, if you have an in-house branch of an AGPLv3 package, and you let a customer SSH in to run it, then you have to grant them full rights to your changes (even though you haven't distributed it). I dig RMS and I love the GPL, but I hate that derivative abomination.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why shouldn't they get the source code to a program they are using, even if it is over SSH? Isn't that the whole point of the Open source and the GPL. Software authors granting the same rights they enjoy to their users? When did having the program you're using running on your own computer become a prerequisite for obtaining GPL rights?
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why shouldn't they get the source code to a program they are using, even if it is over SSH? Isn't that the whole point of the Open source and the GPL.
The problem is that all versions of the GPL have governed distribution, and they're on solid ground with copyright law. Basically, they grant you additional distribution rights above and beyond what you'd normally be allowed as long as you comply with certain restrictions. End users don't even have to agree to the GPL to use software so licensed because usage isn't governed by copyright. The GPLv3 (and the AGPLv3, confusingly enough) even explicitly states this:
Contrast with the AGPL which seeks to control how you run the software by adding:
So, there are new limits to how I can modify the software that have never existed in any prior FSF license. If I start with a GPLv3 library and only want to use one function, then I'm allowed to do that. Not so under the AGPLv3! Taken to the extreme, imagine that Linux was relicensed under the AGPLv3. If you host a Linux server, then you have to offer copies of the Linux kernel (which holds the networking code) to any client that connects to it. Wouldn't that be fun to comply with?
When did having the program you're using running on your own computer become a prerequisite for obtaining GPL rights?
When the GPL was written as a distribution license.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a work-around for the bug that copyright law does not define a public-performance right for software, although a similar right is defined for audio recordings, movies, and theatrical scripts.
Thus, we had a loop-hole in that companies which performed the software over the net without ever distributing it can make substantive derivative works of the program from which they derive tremendous profit but have none of the obligations. Think of google in this context.
I think the first FSF meeting where we discussed this was in 1994. It was seen as a significant problem even before google.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Informative)
You may hate that etc, and prefer not to share the improvements back, but for my web project I've been able to add lots of improvements to my code that derivative sites wouldn't have been obliged to share otherwise, and everyone enjoys the better code as a result.
If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole web-app phenomenon
No. Just... stop. Before we had web apps, we had shell apps and BBS doors and hundreds of other ways to do client/server. This is not some new thing that came along in the last few years.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish you could convince the US Congress of that, so that they'd overturn the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which is about restricting what you can do with a work.
Parent
Think of it as a security patch (Score:5, Interesting)
GPL2 is not about to become invalid. But consider all of the changes we have gone through since GPL2 came out. Back then, the most complicated input device that people were likely to have in their homes was a touch-tone phone. Music came from phonograph records and cassette tape. The "@" sign was a little-used oddity on the typewriter keyboard for most people. Home computers were more the exception than the rule, and their CPUs used 16-bit addresses.
With the advent of consumer digital media we got a ton of law, both legislative and case law. Garbage legislation like ECPA and then DMCA, and a great increase in software patenting. All of that law essentially blind-sided the GPL, which had to cope with it but was not written with knowledge of it.
So, a license upgrade to deal with all of this is like installing a security patch on your operating system. It's just a sensible thing to do.
Bruce
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:4, Insightful)
The article essentially says that the terminology used needs more rigorous definition, and needs to match more closely with the existing legal terminology.
The article also says, "This marks one of the core questions of GPLv2: Is it based on copyright or is it a contract that, while borrowing some copyright terms, ultimately stands on its own?", which is so bizzare that it makes me question the whole thing.
I have no idea why anyone who knows anything about contract law or the GPL would ask this question. The GPL involves no consideration (payment) and therefore is not a contract in any jurisdiction governed by Common Law. The GPL further depends explicitly on the software author's copyright for its legal force.
So why exactly would anyone think this is a "core question of GPLv2"? A core question of clueless jurnos writing far outside their comfort zone, maybe. But not a question anyone who wasn't that profoundly ignorant would ask.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it doesn't have any terms in it that I'm not happy about.
Parent
People still don't understand GPL vs. BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
You went with BSD because you were willing to make a no-strings-attached gift of your software to everyone. Had you not been willing to do that, you would have found a license that did acceptably what you had wanted from GPL2.
For many of us, sharing-with-rules is more attractive than gift. This is especially true for business, because sharing-with-rules admits the potential for dual licensing. This is one of the few ways to carry out Open Source business that actually works.
GPL vs. BSD is essentially a matter of business (or non-business) strategy. You pick the rules that work for you, and then you pick a license.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the GPLv2 is abandonware. If FSF wants to pick it up and spin a GPLv2.1 and an LGPLv2.1 off the GPLv2 branch, then maybe it would be a viable license. As it stands, as legal flaws are found in the license, your only choices are to move up to GPLv3 and accept all the baggage that comes with it, convince your developer community to all sign over copyright, or convince your developer community to all agree to a license change to a BSD or MIT license after the fact. Good luck with that.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Funny)
If only they had released GPLv2 under GPLv2, then you could fork it yourself. But now you're stuck with a proprietary free software license that you can't maintain, except by crawling on your hands and knees to FSF, hoping that they see sufficient market for free software licenses to stay in the license development and maintenance business.
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:5, Interesting)
As it stands, as legal flaws are found in the license, your only choices are...
Or live with it. The problem they bring up is that "derivative work" is not well defined. So worst case scenario, some edge cases that may or may not be ruled "derivative works" may or may not be bound by the license.
So what? Without some real examples of what might be problematic it's hard to tell how important these issues are. And chances are some of these issues have been dealt with already (see the GPL linking exception).
Parent
Re:Not as bad as it sounds! (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it's like that saying if you get handed lemons, make lemonade. GPL relies on the exact same copyright law pertaining to EVERYBODY and available to EVERYBODY but turns the implementation on it's ear by giving things away in a very specific and legal manner that software companies don't like. They can't break GPL without seriously breaking the law that protects their own copyrights.
Parent
Related (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, Darl McBride was seen dancing a little jig at the corner of 42nd and Broadway in New York City.
A source close to the situation informed Slashdot that he was in fact accepting small change to offset his legal fees for the next phase of his litigation against Linux users.
Conspiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman. I've met him, and he's a nice guy. But does anyone recall the furor over GPLv3 when it first came out, & some of the new provisions? This caused a lot of projects to stick with v2.
I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3. Which is icky, but it did occur to me.
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3. Which is icky, but it did occur to me.
What would either the OSI or the Linux Foundation gain from such a thing?
Parent
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3. Which is icky, but it did occur to me.
I doubt it, the crappy language choice in v2 was one of the reasons for writing v3 in the first place (other reasons being that they wanted explicit anti-patent language, that Tivo had pissed off all the extremist nuts, and maybe a few others I don't recall offhand).
Parent
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
So your definition of "extremist nut," then, is someone who thinks they should actually be allowed to exercise the rights that the license is expressly designed to give them. I fail to see how there's anything extremist about requiring that you not distribute software under the license if the hardware directly prevents the users from using the software in a manner that the license explicitly says they can...
It wouldn't be the first time I have seen that definition of "extremist" or "nut" that means "a person who takes a reasonable, legally and morally justifiable action that you happen not to like." It seems to come from a line of thinking which states, "reasonable people cannot possibly disagree on something or take different positions on it; therefore, if you disagree with me, it can only be because something is wrong with you and it is now my job to label what that something is."
Now if someone said that punching random strangers in the face for no reason should be legal and acceptable behavior, I'd say that yes, there probably IS something wrong with them. But to draw such conclusions based on the choice of software license? For code that the author didn't have to write and had no obligation to share with us in the first place? Yeah, that's a bit much.
Besides, if you want to see an "extreme" license, read the average commercial EULA sometime. Wade through all of the legalese and look at the long list of prohibitions and restrictions. Consider whether this really benefits you as a customer and whether it was intended to. Then note that you generally don't get to review it until after you have purchased the commercial software. The freedoms that the GPL guarantees are a breath of fresh air by comparison. Maybe this is just my personal tastes, but I have always found "enjoy this, just don't restrict someone else's ability to enjoy it as you have" to be far more reasonable than "what you bought isn't really yours, and you will use it only in ways that we have decided to allow, which by the way are subject to change."
Parent
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him :) Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry, and ethical/free software in general. Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him, but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.
That said...
lol. We must have met different people. I like what Stallman's done, but trying to have a conversation with him was like trying to swap stories with the loudspeakers at a rock concert --- I mostly just felt like my ears were bleeding and I had to get away ;)
Parent
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source, he would resign from the FSF.
RMS doesn't give a crap about open source. He advocates Free Software.
Parent
Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software.
...
"At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now."
Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at? Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at? Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?
Then again, maybe the GPL is [freebsd.org] not [python.org] responsible [apache.org] for great free software and open source software being written.
Don't get me wrong, I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice, including GPL. But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL'd.
The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions (or something). Lisa says, "That's ridiculous! What makes you think that repels lions?" and Homer replies, "You don't see any lions around, do you?"
Parent
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
It is very hard to avoid relying on FSF software unless you stick with vanilla MS Windows or old-school proprietary UNIX.
Parent
Ideology? (Score:4, Insightful)
How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him, really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel?
Re:Ideology? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is a lost cause, even though I've heard some fancy legal theories on how they could relicense Linux without getting either approval or ripping out that code from those not actively approving. Even though they might possibly work in a few jurisdictions I doubt they work in all or even most countries of the world, it'd make Linux a copyright minefield.
Parent
Re:Ideology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus is probably one of the most pragmatic members of the open source movement, along with being a self-proclaimed bastard (you say that like it's a bad thing). Linus will only think about moving from GPLv2 if Linus thinks it's necessary or beneficial, not because some pen-pusher, pundit or journo tells him to.
Parent
To express GPLv2 ideology in GPLv3 framework (Score:4, Informative)
How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him, really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel?
That can't happen without a rewrite. Too much of Linux is composed of patches written by unreachable authors and whose copyrights haven't been assigned to Mr. Torvalds or the Linux Foundation.
And even then, Mr. Torvalds has stated that he prefers the spirit of GPLv2 [lkml.org] to that of GPLv3. I'm pretty sure that the spirit of GPLv2 can be expressed in the GPLv3 framework by adding a set of exceptions, much like the Classpath license and the LGPLv3 are sets of exceptions to GPLv3.
Parent
real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a real issue. For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source, and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources, automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex. My book, including the ruby and latex code, is under CC-BY-SA. I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations. He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license. Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not. It wasn't clear to me whether his work counted as a derived work. On the one hand, you could say that what he was using was simply some software I wrote, so his book isn't a derived work based on my software any more than a book written in MS Word is a derived work based on Word. On the other hand, there's really no perfect separation between the software and our books. When you write a book in latex, the latex code *is* a piece of software. My code generates various boilerplate in its output, some of which is text that is visible to the reader, so it's under my copyright and license. Of course I could have just told him that it wasn't an issue, and I wouldn't sue him, but I had intentionally chosen the strong copyleft because that's what I wanted. I suspect that a lawyer would tell him his work was actually not a derived work, but I also suspect that he (and his eventual publisher) wouldn't even want to get into that issue.
Although the issue is real, it seems goofy to me to suggest GPLv3 as the fix for the problem. First off, there are huge philosophical differences between v2 and v3. Also, there is so much GPL v2 code out there that you can't necessarily just relicense under GPL v3 without causing yourself hassles with license incompatibilities. I also don't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work. The only thing that forces anyone to accept the GPL license attached to a work is that copyright law doesn't allow them to do certain things without a license from the author. Those things include (1) copying and redistributing the work, and (2) creating and distributing derived works from it.
Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution? (Score:4, Informative)
As the copyright holder, you're free to release the code to this one individual under whatever terms you want. Just because you released it once under one set of conditions doesn't mean that you're bound to release it to the MSU guy under the same conditions. Being the creator, you're free to re-license anything you want. Assuming your code isn't mixed up with someone else's, just license the Ruby code as a separate work.
Parent
Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
No you didn't. I didn't compose an open source song, and that guy over there didn't make open source blueberry jam.
Parent
Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand your point. It is open source. The source code is in latex format. Latex is a Turing-complete programming language, which people use as a format for writing documents. You can download the source code of my book here [lightandmatter.com] (scroll down to the bottom of the page). The source code is under a copyleft license (CC-BY-SA). So I would say that that makes the book an open-source book by any reasonable definition of open source.
Parent
Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the output of a program or of code. If he uses your code to make illustrations, those are his illustrations, as if they were drawn by hand, and he can do with or licence them as he pleases. If this wasn't the case, then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL'd!
Parent
Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping. Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution (eg lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and the business interests that pay for them) don't acknowledge, understand, or otherwise feel comfortable with because they don't feel in control. All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all, and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that, but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again, so I wouldn't worry.
At this point there should be no doubt of the legal soundness of any version of the GPL, but it all boils down to a matter of principle. If a society believes in Free Software, then the GPL's legal application is perfectly simple and valid. To those hostile to freedom in the society, then the application of the GPL becomes something artificially difficult/problematic.
Saber Rattling (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I don't know....GPL V2 has been in and out of the court all over in Europe.
Most settle without a hitch.
Some, need to have it explained in front of a judge.
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about, and if the GPLv2 was unsound legally, it would have long been over turned.
GPLv2 even scares Microsoft's lawyers.
The guy just wants attention.
Send him a cookie.
-Hackus
Doubts Raised About Legal Status of OSI (Score:5, Interesting)
better story: OSI attempts earth-shaking announcement about GPL to draw attention away from fact that their status as nonprofit in California is suspended. Perhaps it was due to failure to file required tax documents (for California and U.S. IRS) for many years, that issue was discussed on Bruce Peren's now-defunct site Technocrat
http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2224685 [ca.gov]
Re:Zealots caught in Gnu/Stallmans trap (Score:5, Insightful)
The license was already proven in court numerous times in different countries. It can definately hold up. I don't care that there are two big IP lawyers. Especialy when you keep in mind the fact that IP has less chance of holding up. IP laywers don't like copyleft for a reason.
Nothing got disproven with that useless article. That, together with you post, will not make an impact at how FLOSS advocates look at the license and it sure as well will not stop them slow them down or even irritate.
Resistance is futile, proprietary pussy.
Parent
Re:Zealots caught in Gnu/Stallmans trap (Score:5, Insightful)
These are lawyers talking about a possible flaw in a legal document.
It's like a coder talking about a bug in a C program. You can say to yourself "Oh, that coder's just causing trouble. There's no real bug" - but that doesn't change the reality that the compiled program will do just what the C instructions tell it to do - nothing more, nothing less. (Well, except that a legal document is interpreted more subjectively - if the document is not written very precisely then different readers may interpret it differently... This is why we live in a world of "legalese" - it sounds arcane and needlessly complicated to non-lawyers but that's just because non-lawyers haven't learned the terminology and practice of precisely phrasing a legal document and guarding against the various rules which may be in effect "by default"...)
We have to be realistic about this - there have been some GPL-related court cases in which the GPL was upheld, but there are also issues surrounding the license, as well as how those are likely to play out in actual court cases, which may be unresolved or unfavorable to people who value software freedom. If one hopes to fix the problem, then one has to be realistic about where and what the problem is. We have a certain set of goals when we license something under the GPL - if we want to actually achieve those goals, we have to do our best to make sure the GPL is legally sound.
The problem of what constitutes a derivative work is one that I've heard before... The problem is that what you or I might consider a GPL violation could in fact be a very small piece of GPL code pulled into a very large non-GPL project. It's difficult to call that a "derived work" of the GPL'ed project. It's using GPLed code but the project as a whole may very well not be "derived" in a real sense from that GPLed work. If the project is big and the bit of borrowed GPL code is small, courts may not take the offense seriously. I don't know if this is something that can be solved with a better license, or if the kind of protection the GPL demands is beyond the scope of copyright... Anyway, it seems like a problem. Even if we want to tell people "you can't reuse parts of this code in other projects unless those projects are GPLed, too", we may not be able to rely upon that demand being fully effective...
Finally, it's worth emphasizing that law is not a static thing. It's a set of agreements between people subject to interpretation and alteration by people. Saying "it works and it doesn't need to change" may not be realistic. If people are working to undermine the GPL, then other people must work to reinforce and improve the license, if it is to be viable in the future. Basically, if the GPL matters to you then you need to fight for it.
Parent
Re:Zealots caught in Gnu/Stallmans trap (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder who pays these gentlemen.
If you had read the summary you'd see they work for the OSI and the Linux Foundation. Hardly organizations that are anti-GPL, anti-FOSS or anti-Linux.
Parent
Re:Zealots caught in Gnu/Stallmans trap (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder who pays these gentlemen.
If you had read the summary you'd see they work for the OSI and the Linux Foundation. Hardly organizations that are anti-GPL, anti-FOSS or anti-Linux.
OSI was founded by people who were unhappy with the Free Software Foundation and the GPL. OSI Founder Eric S. Raymond recently said that the GPL is no longer needed [osnews.com].
Parent
Backduck is one Microsoft anti-FOSS front (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder who pays these gentlemen. And, again, who pays those who pay them...
Blackduck is founded and stocked by Microsoft employees [socializedsoftware.com]. Though it would be damning enough in this context to point out that it is an active Microsoft partner [eweek.com].
SCO was a pre-existing company re-purposed several times, turned pump-n-dump, turned sock puppet. Blackduck was founded from the beginning for the activities it is engaged in.
Parent
"I've killed at least two Mac conferences" (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that this is a story about a "web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software". Blackduck is hardly going to allow any criticism of its partner, Microsoft, nor allow its major thorn, the GPL, to go unmolested. Go re-read plaintiff's exhibit 3096 [google.com] about stacking conference panels. Even without a sock puppet organizing the conference, M$ has a prolific history now of interfering with and shutting down conferences on competing (that's everything by the way) technologies.
When you're dealing with Microsoft, you're dealing with cockroaches. Get over it.
Parent
Re:Zealots caught in Gnu/Stallmans trap (Score:5, Interesting)
This is very petty lawyer-ing and typical misunderstandings from software EULA lawyers chasing their own tails for so many years.
GPL covers SOURCE CODE, and thru "derivative works" covers binary "performances". The whole reason we even have EULA's (End User LICENSE Agreements) is that there was one case 30 years ago where somebody argued that typing source code from a book to RAM and from the RAM to CPU was "infringement" and duplication of the work. So because of the internal machine copies needed, you have to be granted a special LICENSE to USE any kind of software (source code or binary). EULA writers have used US law's reliance on "contracts" to throw the "kitchen sink" in EULAs and call them "contracts" rather than license for use.
yes, the terms they point out have been more precisely defined since 1991. Judges respect stability and don't fall for dizzying logic like this. Judges will realize terms change and favor the UNMODIFIED document nearly every time as a matter of good faith. GPL v2 has been in heavy use unmodified for 18 years, that's incredible stability in an industry where other EULA writers reserve the right to edit/change/modify their EULAs online, without notice, and you pre-agree to the new terms you haven't even seen yet. The GPL is a legal rock, if the best they can do is mince words there's no threat at all.
Parent
Re:"Derivative work" (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPLv2 author's "intent" is irrelevant in court.
To the extent that a word has not been specifically defined within the license, its common legal meaning will prevail.
The reason is that the license is intended to inform the potential licensee of his rights and restrictions before he agrees to it. If the "intent" was not clearly stated in the license and courts allowed it to apply anyway, the licensee's rights would be violated since he did not know what he was agreeing to.
Parent
Re:"Derivative work" (Score:5, Insightful)
The licensee has no rights whatsoever, except the rights received from copyright law.
Er, I think you have that backwards, but it's a common mistake, usually made by big media companies and their **AA agencies. Licensees have every right to copyright works except those rights specifically withheld by copyright law.
Parent
Re:USA is not the whole world! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the US courts are where the majority of this issue will be argued. Even I, as a Rightpondian, can see the sense in that. Chill. Not everything is a calculated insult to your national sovereignty.
Parent
Re:Distribute seems fine; derivative work, maybe n (Score:4, Insightful)
If you borrow the phrase 'derivative work', which is defined by copyright laws, and then the definition of 'derivative work' is changed in the copyright laws, does that mean the definition in the GPLv2 has also changed?
It doesn't matter how you word it, when the legal definition of the words you use change, what they mean in the license will change. You have to use words that have legal meaning to write your license, if the legal meaning of those words changes, the meaning of your license will change.
Parent