Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I think this "attempts to" quip is meaningless.
> > >
> > > How would you like me to say it? "Purports to"? "Professes to"?
> > > "Makes an honest but flawed effort to"?
> >
> > That would depend on the meaning you are trying to convey, wouldn't it?
>
> All of the above. The license text, as actually written, contains an
> erroneous statement:
>
> ... a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
> derivative work under copyright law: ...
You've made this assertion before (that this assertion is
erroneous). I've challenged this assertion.
I still believe you are incorrect in making this assertion.
> (So far so good; that is the formula, in legal documents as in
> mathematics and other formal styles of discourse, for declaring a
> variable and binding it to a set. Ends in a colon, which is a fairly
> strong separator in formal English.)
It's a legal declaration, intended to be understood by humans. Definitions
of this sort are not implemented as computer variables. Among other things,
human grammars are not context-free.
> ... that is to say, ...
>
> (Paraphrase alert! Signals the start of a comment, extending to the
> end of the line! Grammatically, an adverbial phrase, with its scope
> indicated by parallelism in the sentence structure, which in this case
> is at the level of noun phrases.)
You've got too many pronouns here to even begin to discuss whether
this is relevant.
> ... a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim
> or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
>
> (A noun phrase, which the drafter of the GPL may well have thought was
> equivalent to the noun phrase to which it is equated, but which is in
> fact not. I repeat not. Did I say not? Thought I did. Google the
> flippin' Berne convention and read Article 2, inclusive of headings.
> Show me a contradiction in recent case law at the appellate level from
> a developed country and I'll unbend a little -- but not much.)
You have yet to show any examples of cases where this matters.
The interpretation of a copyright license doesn't matter when the
issue is distributing something which is not regulated by that
license.
Sure, you could say something like:
The "Program" contains the letter "e". Therefore, the letter "e"
is a portion of the "Program". Therefore, the GPL claims to
control all use of the English language.
But, guess what? No one cares.
> As the GPL is an offer of contract, not a statute, the common law
> principle is to construe it against the offeror, and to accept the
> definition given above -- if the judge considers it credible that the
> licensee intended to accept that definition. Which, for the record,
> is the only definition I have accepted since I started wearing long
> pants.
The GPL is a license. It matters in contexts where you're distributing
certain copyrighted materials. The question you have to answer, in
those cases, is whether or not you've satisfied the terms of the license.
If you haven't, you are breaking the law in distributing those materials.
Whether or not you're wearing long pants doesn't really enter into the
picture.
Whether or not you intended a certain meaning might or might not enter
into the picture.
You've certainly not presented any examples I consider reasonable, which
illustrate the distinction you seem to be trying to talk about.
> It is indeed the case that, in construing a _statute_, a common law
> court is obliged to find if possible a construction which gives every
> word meaning. If this were a statute, and if it were not otherwise
> absurd to do so, the court would perhaps be obliged to find that "work
> based on the Program" was meant to include the larger scope given in
> the paraphrase, especially if it could be determined from the
> legislative record that the consensus in the legislative body at the
> time was that that was what they meant. For better or for worse,
> neither RMS nor Eben Moglen nor the FSF nor Debian is the legislative
> body for a competent jurisdiction. :-)
Ok, but this isn't a statute. It is relevant because of statute, but it's
also limited in scope to the scope of those statutes.
> Want the first two sentences of GPL Section 0 in (more or less) set
> theory terms?
>
> U \equiv \{ x : "x is any program or other work which contains a
> notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> under the terms of this General Public License" \}
Ok, now you have two words (U and x) which mean the same thing.
> DEFINITION: choose P (the "Program") \element U
I disagree: P is a subset of U, and is not necessarily a singleton set.
In a specific context you might have a singleton set. In other
contexts you might have sets with higher cardinality.
Also, you're leaving out legal subtleties. For example, if I take my
copy of Microsoft(TM) Foghorn(TM) Leghorn(TM) and put the GPL on it,
that doesn't mean that Foghorn Leghorn is GPLed. Only if I have the
legal right to do so does it become GPLed.
If P is a subset of U, this isn't a big issue -- in these cases, P
can be a null set. But if P is an element of U you start running
into these kinds of contradictions.
> E \equiv \( \{ P \} \union \{ y : "y is any derivative work of P under
> copyright law" \} \)
That should be y(P), indicating that y is a function of P.
Also, a closer approximation to the english word "means" would be
x is an element of E implies x is an element of P union y(P)
(but this is an approximation, because there can be other overriding
legal issues.)
> DEFINITION: W ("works based on the Program") \equiv E
>
> C \equiv \{ z : "z is a work containing the Program or a portion of
> it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into
> another language" \}
>
> Hypothesis: W = C; FALSE (C \superset W)
> By (common) law: W remains defined as E.
Here, you're trying to bring into play legal subtleties which you
ignored earlier. But if you're going to be using mathematics, you
need to use a consistent set of axioms.
> > If there's nothing of relevance to say (which is what I believe is the case
> > here), then the best way to convey that lack of meaning is through not
> > saying it. Alternatively, if there is a flaw, ou could succinctly describe
> > the flaw. Or, if succinctness is impossible you could give a url for a
> > page which describes the flaw.
> >
> > I've yet to see anything which makes me believe that the GPL
> > carries this flaw you're suggesting.
>
> Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. As is succinctness. And
> making someone believe something is not really within my powers.
Avoiding trivial issues and focusing on something concrete might
help.
> > > And that an attempt is then made to paraphrase (restate, whatever)
> > > the latter phrase, and that restatement is just plain wrong?
> >
> > You've yet to show why the restatement is wrong.
>
> How about now?
I still disagree with you.
--
Raul
Reply to: