[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Contracts and licenses

@ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :

>Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:
>>@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>> >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that
>> >one had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it
>> >offers, because it's a contract, and that it had to be a
>> >contract, because one had to accept it to receive certain
>> >benefits.
>> >
>> >I don't think either of those is true, and this is a good
>> >example of why I think that.  Calling it a nitpick doesn't make
>> >it less of a counterexample to your claims.
>> >
>>Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
>>software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
>>dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law
>>(9.609/98), to Contract Law and the Civil Code.
>So something as simple as the MIT/X11 license -- "I grant to you a
>license to make derivative works of this work, and to trade in them
>and it without restriction" is a contract?  Gosh.  How can I
>enforce it against you?
If you (p.ex.) rip my (C) notices, which would be a violation of the
license, I can go to Civil Court (in the case, prolly small claims
civil court) and a Judge will make you put them back or else you go
to jail.

>If I issue a license as my example above, but appending "provided
>you wear yellow underpants," and then discover that you have
>distributed copies of the software without wearing yellow
>underpants, can I enforce the contract against you and obtain
>damages or your performance of the underpants-wearing?  Or do I go
>after you for infringing my copyright? >

Both. If I go to Civil Court and the "wearing yellow underpants"
clause is deemed legal by it, the judge will order you to wear
yellow underpants; next time I catch you making copies while in your
tiger underpants, I denounce you to the same judge and you'll go to
jail by our equivalent of "contempt" (it's called "disobedience").

*And* I go to Criminal Court and denounce you for copyright
infringement, and now we're talking *real* jail time and hefty fines
(real in terms of BR law -- down here the max jail time EVER is 30
years: yeah, no 50, no life, and definitively no death penalty, its
forbidden by our Constitution).

All supposing the "wear yp" clause is legal (which prolly is NOT).

>>So, here, basically it's legally binding a license "contract" that
>>says you can only *use* the program or the data generated by it if
>>you are wearing yellow underpants (not really, but almost).
>> >And I'll continue to argue that a license granted only by
>> >contract is non-free.  To the extent that applies to the MPL,
>> >it's certainly relevant.
>> >
>>IRT jurisdicions like ours where, every license is only granted by
>>contract, where do you stand?
>It may not be possible to have free software in such jurisdictions.
>I don't understand their laws well enough to say that it's
>impossible -- indeed, the other messages you've sent about a
>universal right to make any copies necessary for operation imply
>it's not possible to have *unfree* software there.

Any copies necessary for _the_ _operations_ _you're_ _licensed_ _to_
_do_! This means you're infringing in my copyright if I put a clause
"you may not click the File/Save menu entry" and you do so.


Reply to: