Re: Contracts and licenses
Humberto Massa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> @ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
> >Humberto Massa <email@example.com> 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.
That's a violation of the license? But there isn't anything in what I
wrote about copyright notices! Are you sure the judge is sending me
to jail for breach of contract and not for copyright infringement?
> >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
That's criminal in Brasil? Not a tort? Wacky. So you don't get any
damages from me infringing your copyrights?
> (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).
If you ever see a license which suggests the death penalty, I do hope
you'll consider it non-free.
> All supposing the "wear yp" clause is legal (which prolly is NOT).
How come? In the US, I could certainly sign a contract agreeing to
wear yellow underpants in exchange for a license to copy and modify
various works. I suspect that this hints at the difference between
the Brazilian legal term you're translating as "contract" and what I'm
Here, I send you this shell script I have written, which highlights
3com devices: 'cat /proc/pci | tr 3 \*'. I grant you a license to
use, modify, and distribute it, and to distribute any derived works
you make -- HOWEVER, I demand you send me a dollar for this.
Now, are you obligated to send me a dollar? If not, why not. You
*have* the license. I granted it to you. How can I enforce our
If I can't, how is that different from if I said that I grant you the
> >>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.
Do you really mean that copyright can restrict reading a book? That
is, I could sell you a book, but not give you a license to read it?
Or sell you a program, but not give you a license to run it?
Then I'm even less convinced that you can have free software under
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org