Quoting: KristianWhat these GPL lawsuits and settlements are typically about is copyleft [External Link] nature of the GPL. In other words the GPL prohibits people from taking the source code of a GPL work, creating a new product out of it, distributing the new product and then withholding the source code of it or releasing it under more restrictive terms.

OK, that makes sense. That's something my comments acknowledged from the start:

"The GPLv3 wording sounds to me like it's trying to prevent people from duplicating a licensed work and also from trying to get around that restriction by modifying it and distributing it then as their own work. But, prevention of distribution of modified copies is already accomplished in saying that people may not distribute the work because a distributed modified copy still counts as a distributed copy of the original work in copyright law. So, saying anything about modifying it is redundant.

...

If the GPLv3 wording is trying to make it clear to the public that modified copies still count as original copies, then it can be worded better."

Quoting: DrMcCoy

Quoting: DelicieuxzWhat you're arguing for, that a license can be enforceably terminated for modifying a personal instance of a GPL software

As soon as you distribute the software, binary or source, in any form, commercially or non-commercially, the GPL applies to you. In the case of the AGPL, providing an online service also counts as distributing the software.

As long as the modified software doesn't leave your own personal hardware, no foul. If you give it to a friend, bam, the GPL applies. You upload the source to Github, blam, the GPL applies.

OK, that is what I'd expect and is the standpoint I've been talking from.

The point of contention has been this comment I said:

"However, the claim of "Any attempt otherwise to... modify it is void" doesn't sound like it is true, to me. And, I wonder how the part that says "... and will automatically terminate your rights under this License" regarding a modified personal instance could be enforced. I don't think it could be."

A personal instance is not a published and distributed instance. A personal instance is the copy that a person has installed on their own device and which is for their personal usage.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: Delicieuxz[…]

I can't say if you're a troll or just uninformed. If you're just uninformed, then some basic information:
GNU General Public License 3 [External Link]
Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide [External Link]

The official FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? [External Link]
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? [External Link]
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? [External Link]

I'm done with this discussion, have a nice day.

Alternatively to finding a case where a person was actually acted against for modifying licensed software, you could try to find the legal understanding that prevents people from doing so.

I can think of situations where the law went the other way:

- Courts ruling that people are entitled to modify their cell-phones to access different networks, despite what the phone manufacturer claimed people had permission to do.

- The 'right to repair' ruling.

- The US and EU top courts ruling that any EULA claim that purchased licenses cannot be transferred is invalid.

And legal philosophy on what people's right to modify software should be:

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=facpubs [External Link]

Intellectual property law has historically balanced the competing interests
of the public and innovative entrepreneurs. The long accepted principle of intellectual
property law is that protection should be granted to innovators only so
far as it serves the interests of the public.203 As applied to software modification
policy, there would seem a strong public interest in permitting users to modify
software to make it more useful, as well as a strong interest in the existence of
market competition for software modification services. The intellectual property
law should recognize and accommodate these important public interests.

However, the examples I've given above are generally focused on situations where people paid for their software license, and so the first-sale doctrine applies.

In the case of GPL, as I've said:

"I don't know about GPLv3, other than to say that it doesn't involve an item which was traded for money, and so the first-sale doctrine doesn't automatically apply."

Whether that changes the conventional practice of people modifying their personal software instances without legal repercussions, I don't know. You'd have to find a case showing it successfully did in order to prove that it can.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: Delicieuxz[…]

I can't say if you're a troll or just uninformed. If you're just uninformed, then some basic information:
GNU General Public License 3 [External Link]
Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide [External Link]

The official FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? [External Link]
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? [External Link]
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? [External Link]

I'm done with this discussion, have a nice day.

Well, I guess you have to be done with it, because you were wrong.

It looks like I misread the description of the BusyBox vs Best Buy case and attributed the “personal, non-commercial purposes only" claim to the plaintiff instead of the defendant, but a more thorough look at the case reveals that it still has nothing to do with what you claimed it to. The case didn't involve an accusation of modifying GPL software, but of not providing the source code according to the GPLv2 license: "SFLC/SFC, took the position that the failure to provide source code as required by GPLv2 (a) automatically terminated the licensees’ right to distribute GPLv2 code"

And no, I'm no expert on GPL, and didn't claim to be. You asked what the things I said in a previous post would mean for GPL licenses and I explained what I expect after giving the GPL terms you posted a cursory look. You took issue with my explanation, but have failed to provide a single example of how what I said doesn't hold up.

I misread and failed to read some information about cases you presented, but the correct reading of them doesn't say what you claimed they did (the case was not about modifying GPL software and passed no judgment on modifying GPL software), and doesn't contradict what I gave as my expectation in response to you asking how GPL licenses would work in light of my previous claims about invalid, ignorable, and non-enforceable license clauses.

What you're arguing for, that a license can be enforceably terminated for modifying a personal instance of a GPL software, is akin to claiming that Disney can sue or legally act against a person who draws a picture of Mickey Mouse in their home.

Let me know if you find an example of such a thing happening.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: delicieuxzHowever, the only case I see that regards modifying GPL-licensed software is the Welte in AVM vs Cybits case, and that case ended with the court ruling that, contrary to the GPL licenser's claim, the defendant was in-fact entitled to modify the GPL software and people were entitled to use the software after it had been modified.

The GPLv2 licenser (Welte) did argue in favor of the defendant and the ruling was in favor of the GPLv2. AVM was trying to deny the right to modify GPLv2 software (which would be a GPL violation). So I really don't see your point and it definitely does not argue against anything I said (GPLv2[/v3] are legally solid and the license can be terminated after a violation).

Longer version: Summary of the case so far [External Link]

I clearly didn't read the whole case thoroughly, just the outcome. However, that means that there are no cases on the webpage you linked to that demonstrate a case about modifying GPL software.

Quoting: poiuzAnd it is not true, that this is the only case about modifying GPLv2 code. As I said, Busybox vs Best Buy + 13 other companies (2009-2012) was about

[…]
embedded in electronic products or by itself – that contains BusyBox or a derivative work of BusyBox

[…]

What was the result: Westhinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC filed for an alternative procedure to bankrupcy allowed under California law [6], thus exiting the main lawsuit. U.S.D.J. Scheindlin found «Westinghouse’s infringement to be willful and therefore awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000. The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff» [4]. All other companies reached an out of court settlement [7].

Again in favor of the GPLv2 and the court even prohibits the distribution of a product containing the GPLv2 code after its violation.

So no, it has nothing to do with arrogance, I simply try to state facts. And facts are that the GPLv2/v3 are legally solid and their clauses were confirmed in courts (GPLv3 not so much, yet, but there are cases, too).

This time, you haven't read the case thoroughly.

The Busybox vs Best Buy + 13 other companies case didn't involve an accusation of modifying GPL software, and "or a derivative work of BusyBox" is not what the GPL violation was.

The violation was having "distributed firmware... in a manner that does not comply with the License."

The GPL license was for "personal, non-commercial purposes only" while Best Buy and 13 other companies distributed the GPL firmware commercially.

The "or a derivative work of BusyBox" was only relevant in the case to establish whether GPL software was being used in a violating manner because of what I said, here:

"a distributed modified copy still counts as a distributed copy of the original work in copyright law."

And:

"The GPLv3 wording sounds to me like it's trying to prevent people from duplicating a licensed work and also from trying to get around that restriction by modifying it and distributing it then as their own work."

The court's decision in the case:

"The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff" (before an out-of-court settlement took place)...

... was because the companies were distributing GPL software as part of a commercial venture which violated the "personal, non-commercial purposes only" condition of the license. The court nor the case argued that there was a violation pertaining to modifying GPL software.

None of the cases on the webpage you've linked to show an example contradicting what you've taken issue with about what I said, which is:

"However, the claim of "Any attempt otherwise to... modify it is void" doesn't sound like it is true, to me. And, I wonder how the part that says "... and will automatically terminate your rights under this License" regarding a modified personal instance could be enforced. I don't think it could be."

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: Delicieuxz[…]

Let's quickly wrap up this off-topic discussion: The GPLv2/v3 are in conformance with the law in the EU & the USA. They have undergone legal scrutiny in courts (GPL Enforcement Cases [External Link] and the rights can also be revoked (e.g. Busybox vs Best Buy + 13 other companies (2009-2012)).

Wow, arrogance overload! But, you're wrong and your own link proves what I said.

The cases shown on that page demonstrate that non-licensed distribution is protected against, which I said is the case in my long post:

An Intellectual Property is an intangible property, and so is a license granted to make use of an IP via a non-reproduceable instance (such as software) of it - but they are distinct intangible properties. While a publisher hands out the right to use their IP when it grants a license, they don't hand away the IP itself and so the right to reproduce copies of their IP for distribution remains with the IP holder.

So, the GPLv3 wording sounds valid when it says "Any attempt otherwise to propagate... it is void".

However, the only case I see that regards modifying GPL-licensed software is the Welte in AVM vs Cybits case, and that case ended with the court ruling that, contrary to the GPL licenser's claim, the defendant was in-fact entitled to modify the GPL software and people were entitled to use the software after it had been modified:

What was the result: The Court firstly closed the preliminary case, confirming the position of Mr Welte as long as the modified software doesn't return incorrect values. In its next decision on November 8th in the principal proceedings, the Court denied that Cybits had infringed AVM's copyright: Cybit had the right to download the GPL parts of the AVM firmware in order to modify them.

So, it looks as though things are precisely as I previously said I thought they would be:

... However, the claim of "Any attempt otherwise to... modify it is void" doesn't sound like it is true, to me. And, I wonder how the part that says "... and will automatically terminate your rights under this License" regarding a modified personal instance could be enforced. I don't think it could be.

...

The GPLv3 wording seems redundant and unrefined to me and, like any claim, is ignorable to the extent that it is invalid before law. And, I think that the parts beyond claiming that people may not distribute duplicates of the digital item are fluff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chancho_zombie

Quoting: DelicieuxzIf the person paid for the key and maybe even if they didn't, then that's called theft on the part of the game developer, and is no different than if somebody walks into your house and takes a physical possession that you have.

What property is and what taking another person's property is are things that are defined in law. And once an item passes its first-sale (don't know if that applies in this situation or not) then the seller no longer holds any authority over that item. Software licenses are also a property, and a seller or former possessor of a software license has no legal right to do anything to another person's software license once they have given it to someone else.

More information on that is in this post:

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/953835-truth-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/ [External Link]

are you sure of that?? I thought that modifying a binary was illegal.

that linustechtips topic is surely an interesting read!

A person is entitled to modify their property as they see fit, including digital products like software and movies. What they can't do is make duplicates of their single instance of a digital product and distribute it.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: DelicieuxzWhat property is and what taking another person's property is are things that are defined in law. And once an item passes its first-sale (don't know if that applies in this situation or not) then the seller no longer holds any authority over that item. Software licenses are also a property, and a seller or former possessor of a software license has no legal right to do anything to another person's software license once they have given it to someone else.

Question: How are then OpenSource licenses supposed to work, e.g. GPLv3?:

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

Lots of things about digital licenses are personal inventions with no real-world applicability - that is to say that lots of things about digital licenses are not based in law, have never undergone legal scrutiny in a court, and frequently are outright contradicted by laws.

I don't know about GPLv3, other than to say that it doesn't involve an item which was traded for money, and so the first-sale doctrine doesn't automatically apply.

But, any digital license should be read with the understanding that a fantasy cult has been built around digital licensing, where those who write them regularly do so from a misguided assumption that because digital items are not physical items that just automatically means that a publisher of a digital license is its god to dictate everything concerning that item's future usage. In reality, property is counted in law as both tangible (physical items) and intangible (non-physical items - bonds, stocks, licenses, patents, etc) and the same rules generally apply to both of them: If you give something to somebody, you've given that item to that person and so it is no longer yours to make any claims regarding.

https://www.superbrokers.ca/library/glossary/terms/intangible_property.php [External Link]

An Intellectual Property is an intangible property, and so is a license granted to make use of an IP via a non-reproduceable instance (such as software) of it - but they are distinct intangible properties. While a publisher hands out the right to use their IP when it grants a license, they don't hand away the IP itself and so the right to reproduce copies of their IP for distribution remains with the IP holder.

So, the GPLv3 wording sounds valid when it says "Any attempt otherwise to propagate... it is void". However, the claim of "Any attempt otherwise to... modify it is void" doesn't sound like it is true, to me. And, I wonder how  the part that says "... and will automatically terminate your rights under this License" regarding a modified personal instance could be enforced. I don't think it could be.

The GPLv3 wording sounds to me like it's trying to prevent people from duplicating a licensed work and also from trying to get around that restriction by modifying it and distributing it then as their own work. But, prevention of distribution of modified copies is already accomplished in saying that people may not distribute the work because a distributed modified copy still counts as a distributed copy of the original work in copyright law. So, saying anything about modifying it is redundant.

The GPLv3 wording seems redundant and unrefined to me and, like any claim, is ignorable to the extent that it is invalid before law. And, I think that the parts beyond claiming that people may not distribute duplicates of the digital item are fluff. If the GPLv3 wording is trying to make it clear to the public that modified copies still count as original copies, then it can be worded better.

Many publishers write digital licenses knowing that they don't count for much beyond their psychological influence to invoke or prevent certain end-user behaviours - which is something publishers still consider to be valuable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

If the person paid for the key and maybe even if they didn't, then that's called theft on the part of the game developer, and is no different than if somebody walks into your house and takes a physical possession that you have.

What property is and what taking another person's property is are things that are defined in law. And once an item passes its first-sale (don't know if that applies in this situation or not) then the seller no longer holds any authority over that item. Software licenses are also a property, and a seller or former possessor of a software license has no legal right to do anything to another person's software license once they have given it to someone else.

More information on that is in this post:

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/953835-truth-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/ [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments