Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> Being concerned with the legality of redistributing KDE linked to QT
> I consulted a copyright lawyer about Andreas Pour's interpretation
> given on this list. The copyright lawyer has two law degrees and is
> completing a Master's degree a component of which comprised copyright
> law, he has 20 years experience in the field. (This is in Australian
> law).
Hm... I've never studied Australian copyright law
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133).
I'm far more familiar with US copyright law
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/). However, reading over the
rest of your message, I don't see that that's an issue.
> He is technically literate, and is an avid FreeBSD user and active
> software developer. He established a BBS in 1983 that later became
> part of FidoNet and was in service for a total of 14 years.
>
> He analysed part of Andreas' interpretation for me free of charge.
> This was done on an informal basis (during our lunchbreak).
> Unfortunately I don't feel like broadcasting his name on the net. I
> would like to give a list of his findings. In the following list "he"
> refers to the copyright lawyer and "he agreed" means the copyright
> lawyer agreed with the portion of Andreas Pour's interpretation being
> discussed.
I the potential for problems with this. For example, directing his
attention to certain aspects of the license during lunch, you'd likely be
glossing over what I see as the major flaw of Andreas Pour's argument:
his concept of what a program is (he seems to think that a program is a
file, where the GPL indicates that the usual case is that a program is
a collection of files).
> Firstly I showed him a copy of the GPL:
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>
> and then Andreas Pour's interpretation of the GPL:
> http://lists.kde.org/?/=kde-licensing&m=94950776505266&w=2
I believe that the arguments presented in that message are flawed in
several respects. However, from what you say below, I don't think that
your lunchtime conversation covered those topics.
It *is* legal to distribute code which is composed of BSD licensed code
plus GPL licensed code. And, the BSD licensed code retains the BSD
license, and if you later extract the unmodified (or trivially modified)
BSD code from the larger work then none of the GPL issues have anything
to do with the distribution of the BSD code.
It's only when you introduce a license like the QPL (which introduces a
clause that says that you have to arrange for modified versions of the
code to be licensed so that Troll can redistribute it in proprietary form)
that you run into a conflict with section 6 of the GPL.
> * He agreed the Andreas Pour's preferred interpretation of the phrase
> "under the terms of this License" was the one most likely to be used
> by a Judge interpreting the GPL.
If the context was a BSD+GPL licensed work, I'd see no problem with this.
And, since Judges typically word their interpretation as narrowly as
possible, I wouldn't worry about such an interpretation being taken to
mean that a GPLed work could be combined with a QPLed work such that
the GPLed work could be relicensed under whatever terms Troll deems
appropriate.
> * He stated that a Judge would not interpret the phrase to mean "all
> the terms of this license apply to it".
By "it" I think you mean the BSD licensed work, as opposed to the
work which was created by combining the GPLed code with the BSD
licensed code.
> * He stated that if the phrase was sufficiently uncertain and
> therefore could not be enforced (and maybe it is) then the Judge would
> strike the phrase from the license and interpret the license with the
> phrase removed.++
Obviously.
> Secondly I showed him Andreas Pour's XFree license
> comment, which contains a copy of the Xfree license:
> http://lists.kde.org/?/=kde-licensing&m=94950776505271&w=2
>
> * He agreed that software licensees have no inherent right to
> relicense software under a more restrictive license.
Which has never been the real issue as far as I'm concerned.
> * He agreed that one could not relicense software under the XFree
> license+++ under the GPL, as the XFree license prohibits this.
No problem.
> I (Don Sanders) conclude that copyright law supports the premises of
> Andreas' interpretation.
For the points that you seem to have discussed with your lawyer friend
that appears to be a non-issue. But I don't think you should assume he
agrees on issues you didn't discuss.
--
Raul
Reply to: