Re: Contracts and licenses
<posted & mailed>
lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
>> distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
>> binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different
>> license), and this license took those rights away, this would *not* be a
>> free requirement.
>>
>
> Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT
> IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*?
Because it is actually taking away rights.
>> For instance, consider a GPL-licensed work where the copyright holder
>> offers
>> licenses to use the program without source for a fee. I should certainly
>> be able to use the proprietary license from the copyright holder for one
>> project and the GPL for another. If the GPL contained such a requirement
>> and it wasn't a restriction on the grant of rights, but rather an
>> *actual*
>> consideration, this would be impossible. Get the picture?
>
> I had to read this four times, and I still don't understand your
> example.
Sorry, it is rather complex.
> I think you are talking about cases where a restriction in the
> license interferes with some other license?
Yes, some other license you already had. *Or*, and more importantly, when
it interferes with your fair use rights, your right to use the program
(which is not restricted by copyright), and the other rights you'd have if
you *didn't* accept the license. In the US at least, although you have
these rights, you're allowed to "sign them away", in whole or in part, by
agreeing to a contract. (There was some precedent about that on Groklaw
recently.) A free license should not make you do that!
> In that case, I point you
> back to the GPL clause which allows you to distribute binary and make
> the source code available. IANAL, but even if I have a separate license
> that says I can distribute the binary without posting source, I still
> can't undo the fact that in the past I have already distributed the
> binary under the GPL option. However, I can certainly use the
> newly-obtained license for disributions in the future.
That's because in the GPL, the distribution rules are a restriction on the
grant of rights.
If distributing the source *whenever* you distribute the binary was an
actual *consideration* -- in the "fictional GPL" -- you could *not* use the
newly-obtained license for future binary-only distributions. Or rather,
doing so would mean you had broken your contract (the fictional-GPL) and
could not distribute under the fictional-GPL any more.
(If you want a more compelling example, assume that you had the
'newly-obtained license' *first*, and it was irrevocable. Distributing
under the fictional-GPL would effectively terminate your rights under the
other license.)
Seriously.
> Generalizing, if the restriction does not interfere with the normal
> free-software rights, I do not see the problem.
The "normal free-software rights" must include fair use rights in the US,
the right to use a program for its ordinary purpose without agreeing to
anything, etc. If a license is written as a contract with requirements,
and is not written carefully to specifically protect those rights, then by
agreeing to the license you may be signing away those rights!
This is "Dictator test" stuff.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: