[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> posted f6sv6g$a8$1@sea.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on  Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:

> Duncan wrote:
>> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
>> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. []  Gentoo policy
>> would seem to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole
>> that's copyrighted.  Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's 
>> /implied/ (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are,
>> there'd be little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion
>> of the tree was copied/modified.
>> 
>> Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is
>> all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree
>> structure [eclasses, etc].
>> 
> Hmm I agree that the ebuilds are useless without the eclasses, but imo
> every ebuild is still copyrighted. (Ie `Individual ebuilds may or may
> not be' seems untrue to me.) The practical consequences you outline seem
> accurate, in that someone copying a single ebuild is unlikely to be
> sued. And OFC this would only be an issue where the derived work is NOT
> released under the GPL.

Some ebuilds, for example the old monolithic xfree86/xorg ebuilds, were 
certainly complicated enough to be "non-trivial".  No argument there.  
BTW, talking about eclasses, the default functions in (IIRC) ebuild.sh 
should be included as well.  The most trivial of the ebuilds are just 
that in part /because/ of those default functions, so again, we're 
looking at a complete work, altho here, it's complicated by the separate 
components, keeping in mind that there are implementations other than 
portage, which of course have to implement their own "compatible" default 
functions.

Practically speaking, however, regardless if the individual ebuilds can 
be copyrighted or not, it all comes down to where the line is drawn at 
which Gentoo (or our legal representatives) chooses to sue.  I just don't 
see it being an issue at the one or even a handful of ebuilds level, even 
if it were MS itself making use of them, except /perhaps/ as one more 
warhead in the patent MAD scenario.

>> [anti-tivoization clauses]

> Well I guess the concern would be if a Gentoo-based system were running
> on such hardware.

The likelihood of that is extremely remote.  portage and the tree's 
primary focus is on sources distributed to the end user.  For those 
focused primarily on binaries, there are better solutions, so it's not a 
practical worry at that level.  If they are simply building the system 
image using Gentoo, there's no GPL either version obligation to 
distribute the tools as long as the system can be built without them, as 
it can (untar/configure/make/make-install), any more than there's an 
obligation to distribute the CD imaging software used to create a Linux 
LiveCD, just because it has Linux on it.

> GPL3 would mean that was impractical, which aiui is
> the point of the clause- to stop Free software being used in a manner
> that restricts users' rights.

The GPL doesn't restrict use (as in end-user use, not derived use), it 
grants certain rights of distribution and modification otherwise reserved 
due to copyright, on the condition certain rules are followed regarding 
that modification and distribution.

Even under GPLv3, the TIVOs and media companies of the world are 
perfectly free to implement (say) DRM on the software.  There's just 
certain conditions placed on distribution of said product then, keys 
necessary to modify the software (as run on the distributed hardware if 
any) and therefore remove that DRM must be provided (in the consumer but 
not always the biz customer case), and in any case, GPLv3 software is 
defined as NOT an anti-circumvention device, preventing that clause of 
the DMCA and similar laws from applying.

>> There's also the hassle of changing.  Many contributors could argue
>> that they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period.
>> 
> AIUI it doesn't really matter how past contributors feel
> (legally-speaking) in that they explicitly gave copyright to Gentoo.

Copyright to Gentoo is one thing, but if it was made while there was a 
public pledge that it would be GPLv2, as someone up-thread stated has 
been the case (I tried to find the pledge on the site just now, but the 
closest I can find is the social contract, it specifies the "or later" 
clause, but also specifies at "our" discretion, with the "our" referring 
to the contributor to Gentoo), that pledge could be held to be legally 
binding.  If someone argues that they only made the assignment based on 
said pledge (which specifies that the discretion on the "or later" clause 
belongs to the committer to Gentoo), then while Gentoo holds the 
copyright, for them to change the license without the permission of the 
original contributor could be held to be fraud.  The redress for such 
fraud would likely include reversion of the copyright to the previous 
holder, since the conditions under which it was transferred were breached.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list