- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Having offended everyone else in the world, Linus Torvalds calls own lawyers a 'nasty festering disease'
|
|
|
Comments (29)
9 earlier comments in the full thread.
> i am aware of that principle, but it doesn't apply to copyright.
The GPL is a software license, not a copyright. It is based on copyright, but the two aren't the same thing legally. A software license can be found invalid without affecting the copyright. As I said, to my knowledge it's never been brought up in court.
The GPL is a software license, not a copyright. It is based on copyright, but the two aren't the same thing legally. A software license can be found invalid without affecting the copyright. As I said, to my knowledge it's never been brought up in court.
Oblig disclaimer: IANAL. But it appears to me that this conversation is missing an important point.
Users are guaranteed rights under the GPL. Developers are likewise guaranteed rights. But neither users nor developers can violate the GPL.
Violating the GPL consists in not providing source code, or making the source code readily available on request, for users and developers. That violation can be committed only by distributors of GPL-licensed products. Not abiding by that legal responsibility is the only way to violate the GPL, and that can occur only with an act of distribution (called "conveyance" in the GPLv3).
This has always been my understanding of rights vs. obligations under the GPL.
Users are guaranteed rights under the GPL. Developers are likewise guaranteed rights. But neither users nor developers can violate the GPL.
Violating the GPL consists in not providing source code, or making the source code readily available on request, for users and developers. That violation can be committed only by distributors of GPL-licensed products. Not abiding by that legal responsibility is the only way to violate the GPL, and that can occur only with an act of distribution (called "conveyance" in the GPLv3).
This has always been my understanding of rights vs. obligations under the GPL.
Linus Torvalds seems to figure that as long as he, himself, and associated developers can see the code, that's good enough for him. He doesn't really believe that ordinary "users" deserve the benefits conferred by the GPL... he has said quite baldly that the "users" are idiots, and access to the code is for all practical purposes wasted on them -- and he's not been shy about saying as much in pretty plain language.
So Linus is focused on the code, and sees fuzzy legal matters (especially GPL/Free Software "philosophizing") as no more than needless complication and largely pointless side issues, that distract from the work at hand..
It's a bit of a blind spot with him.
Mathew Garrett (for an example on the other side, since his name was brought up) can also demonstrate an equally large blind spot on certain matters (hence his "SJW" reputation, even though there is a large chunk of genuine problems that needs to be addressed -- and arguably isn't being addressed appropriately).
They are both very smart guys who have a good chunk of solid reason, largely supported by experience, on their side -- and have trouble seeing, in particular contexts, where that solidity falls off to a superficial facade where the facets of their understanding extend into some particular larger sphere.
Pretty much all of us suffer this tendency (it tends to strike precisely where we believe we are "experts", or have extensive experience, or at least believe ourselves better informed than we actually are).
The solution is simple: don't deify our leaders -- technical or otherwise. And remember that even our own fields of expertise are likely full of nooks and crannies and hidden complexities and blocked perspectives we might not even be aware of. Nobody knows it all.
So Linus is focused on the code, and sees fuzzy legal matters (especially GPL/Free Software "philosophizing") as no more than needless complication and largely pointless side issues, that distract from the work at hand..
It's a bit of a blind spot with him.
Mathew Garrett (for an example on the other side, since his name was brought up) can also demonstrate an equally large blind spot on certain matters (hence his "SJW" reputation, even though there is a large chunk of genuine problems that needs to be addressed -- and arguably isn't being addressed appropriately).
They are both very smart guys who have a good chunk of solid reason, largely supported by experience, on their side -- and have trouble seeing, in particular contexts, where that solidity falls off to a superficial facade where the facets of their understanding extend into some particular larger sphere.
Pretty much all of us suffer this tendency (it tends to strike precisely where we believe we are "experts", or have extensive experience, or at least believe ourselves better informed than we actually are).
The solution is simple: don't deify our leaders -- technical or otherwise. And remember that even our own fields of expertise are likely full of nooks and crannies and hidden complexities and blocked perspectives we might not even be aware of. Nobody knows it all.
>don't deify our leaders
For me, I am happy the Linux project has a leader, imperfect in his language, perfect in his management, who stood the test of time with hundreds of contributors, whose project did not fall apart with chaotic contribution, without which and without whom, I would have an iPhone in my belt pocket, a Windows home server and laptop where I would not be typing these words.
For me, I am happy the Linux project has a leader, imperfect in his language, perfect in his management, who stood the test of time with hundreds of contributors, whose project did not fall apart with chaotic contribution, without which and without whom, I would have an iPhone in my belt pocket, a Windows home server and laptop where I would not be typing these words.
@nmset:
What if Linus decided that the BSD license was a better fit for his kernel?
Remember in 1991, Macs were not *nix machines. Perhaps, Apple would have grabbed the Linux kernel instead of the Mach kernel. Perhaps then, coding mindshare would have left for the shiny colored Apples rather than stayed with the monochrome GNUs [logos, not displays].
The license matters. Apple didn't grab the Linux kernel... probably because of the GPL which would have required them to abide by the restrictive license agreement and release certain portions of their OS under the GPL.
So... a lot of speculation... but... It's possible that if Linus did not choose the GPL, you would not have the Linux kernel you do today. However, you might be writing about the GNU OS and the Hurd kernel.
What if Linus decided that the BSD license was a better fit for his kernel?
Remember in 1991, Macs were not *nix machines. Perhaps, Apple would have grabbed the Linux kernel instead of the Mach kernel. Perhaps then, coding mindshare would have left for the shiny colored Apples rather than stayed with the monochrome GNUs [logos, not displays].
The license matters. Apple didn't grab the Linux kernel... probably because of the GPL which would have required them to abide by the restrictive license agreement and release certain portions of their OS under the GPL.
So... a lot of speculation... but... It's possible that if Linus did not choose the GPL, you would not have the Linux kernel you do today. However, you might be writing about the GNU OS and the Hurd kernel.
Linus Torvalds is not a publicity seeker. Matthew Garrett is nothing but.
Torvalds has genuine achievements of which he can speak. Garrett claims to be a security professional but the last time there was a remote vulnerability in CoreOS (where he works) he was responsible for it, a fact that he neatly hid when writing the company's disclosure note.
Please do not conflate the two; one is an engineer who operates in the true spirit of a scientist. The other is someone who is always trying to bignote themselves.
Torvalds has genuine achievements of which he can speak. Garrett claims to be a security professional but the last time there was a remote vulnerability in CoreOS (where he works) he was responsible for it, a fact that he neatly hid when writing the company's disclosure note.
Please do not conflate the two; one is an engineer who operates in the true spirit of a scientist. The other is someone who is always trying to bignote themselves.
ironically, steven jobs did choose objective-c which was built on top of the GCC, and which prevented them from closing its source.
@jdixon: i don't understand what copyright enforcement has to do with the validity of the GPL.
"even if you don't enforce copyright, you don't lose it" is a statement of fact.
are you saying that, by not enforcing the GPL, the GPL loses its validity? that statement does not compute. either the GPL is valid, then it can be enforced at any time, as long as the copyright applies, or the GPL is not valid, and then it would be unenforcable to begin with.
according to wikipedia, the GPL has been tested and clearly found valid in germany: http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_fran...
and at least one of the busybox cases ended with a judgement to enforce the GPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210
greetings, eMBee.
@jdixon: i don't understand what copyright enforcement has to do with the validity of the GPL.
"even if you don't enforce copyright, you don't lose it" is a statement of fact.
are you saying that, by not enforcing the GPL, the GPL loses its validity? that statement does not compute. either the GPL is valid, then it can be enforced at any time, as long as the copyright applies, or the GPL is not valid, and then it would be unenforcable to begin with.
according to wikipedia, the GPL has been tested and clearly found valid in germany: http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_fran...
and at least one of the busybox cases ended with a judgement to enforce the GPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210
greetings, eMBee.
@BernardSwiss: can you please elaborate which blind spots you see in mathew garret?
(obviously, just because i don't see the blind spots in mathew, does not mean they are not there, it could just be my blind spot :-)
greetings, eMBee.
(obviously, just because i don't see the blind spots in mathew, does not mean they are not there, it could just be my blind spot :-)
greetings, eMBee.
> are you saying that, by not enforcing the GPL, the GPL loses its validity?
I'm saying that by not enforcing the license there is a possibility that they lose the ability to enforce the license.
If a license breaker can show a pattern of the license not being enforced in the past, he can possibly argue successfully that there is no reason it should be enforced it in his case either. But then, IANAL.
I'm saying that by not enforcing the license there is a possibility that they lose the ability to enforce the license.
If a license breaker can show a pattern of the license not being enforced in the past, he can possibly argue successfully that there is no reason it should be enforced it in his case either. But then, IANAL.
@jdixon
>What if Linus decided that the BSD license was a better fit for his kernel?
You are totally right all throughout that post. I did not talk about licenses in this discussion because it's sidebranching from the object of the article (Linus's view on who discuss about kernel developpement). The GPL IS the right license for such a project, which would probably not have the same success otherwise.
>What if Linus decided that the BSD license was a better fit for his kernel?
You are totally right all throughout that post. I did not talk about licenses in this discussion because it's sidebranching from the object of the article (Linus's view on who discuss about kernel developpement). The GPL IS the right license for such a project, which would probably not have the same success otherwise.
Quoting:I'm saying that by not enforcing the license there is a possibility that they lose the ability to enforce the license. If a license breaker can show a pattern of the license not being enforced in the past, he can possibly argue successfully that there is no reason it should be enforced it in his case either.
nope, he can not. as the references i have given clearly explain:
Quoting:unlike trademarks, which do have to be defended, there is nothing the precludes you from enforcing your copyrights at a later date
Quoting: You also can’t lose your copyright if you don’t defend it. You can ignore violators for years — then come back later, and sue them all. Widespread infringement could reduce the market value of your work, and the courts could award you a smaller settlement, but the copyright would still be yours.
if that is not enough, then we'll have to research the actual text of the law in question, or ask a lawyer.
as the quote says, at best, enforcing your copyright very late, limits the amount of damages you can claim. however, the GPL is not about damages, but about sharing code, and as a GPL violator looses any rights given by the GPL, the only option to get those rights back is to honor the license.
the only case you might get away with a violation is if you violate the license once, then stop using the code, and hope that when you get sued 10 years down the road that the damages by then are so small that they don't eat up the profit you made on that product.
but none of this affects the validity and enforcability of the GPL. no matter how far in the past the license violation happened, you can be found guilty of violating the GPL. this remains true until the copyright expires.
greetings, eMBee.
> nope, he can not. as the references i have given clearly explain:
Both of which deal with copyright. Again, the GPL is not a copyright. It is a license. They are not the same. A license can be rendered invalid or ineffective without affecting the underlying copyright.
> if that is not enough, then we'll have to research the actual text of the law in question...
It's not a specific law in most cases, but rather goes back to the British Common Law principle of equal standing under the law. People have to be treated the same for committing the same infraction. You can't just pick and choose who you enforce the law against or what punishment you give them. In the US, this has been codified in the 14th amendment as "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". And while it's a private entity bringing the case, not the state, it's still the state issuing the penalty. So it has to be applied equally.
So if you haven't enforced the GPL against numerous other infractions, but do against a specific one, that's unequal enforcement, and violates the principle.
Would a judge accept this argument? I have no idea. But under US law and other British Common Law derived systems, it's a reasonable argument to make if you're a defendant.
> ...or ask a lawyer.
That's always the case with legal matters. Or ask several, and get several different answers. But why not simply play it safe and enforce the GPL when clear violations are brought to your attention? That nullifies the question completely. It's not enforcing the GPL against known violators that's problematic.
Both of which deal with copyright. Again, the GPL is not a copyright. It is a license. They are not the same. A license can be rendered invalid or ineffective without affecting the underlying copyright.
> if that is not enough, then we'll have to research the actual text of the law in question...
It's not a specific law in most cases, but rather goes back to the British Common Law principle of equal standing under the law. People have to be treated the same for committing the same infraction. You can't just pick and choose who you enforce the law against or what punishment you give them. In the US, this has been codified in the 14th amendment as "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". And while it's a private entity bringing the case, not the state, it's still the state issuing the penalty. So it has to be applied equally.
So if you haven't enforced the GPL against numerous other infractions, but do against a specific one, that's unequal enforcement, and violates the principle.
Would a judge accept this argument? I have no idea. But under US law and other British Common Law derived systems, it's a reasonable argument to make if you're a defendant.
> ...or ask a lawyer.
That's always the case with legal matters. Or ask several, and get several different answers. But why not simply play it safe and enforce the GPL when clear violations are brought to your attention? That nullifies the question completely. It's not enforcing the GPL against known violators that's problematic.
Those upholding principles and the law are often derided as unreasonable extremists but we must have them.
Many people still think RMS is a loon but you need these people to guide the rest of us.
Without the GPL, Linux would certainly not exist as it does now (or at all).
And I don't get the view that many in industry have about the GPL in terms of its freedoms. How many proprietary licenses allow you to see the source, modify it, distribute your mods, sell it (freely)? All it asks is that if you use it, you respect the same freedoms with your code. You don't like it? Don't use it.
Without the GPL, Linux would certainly not exist as it does now (or at all).
And I don't get the view that many in industry have about the GPL in terms of its freedoms. How many proprietary licenses allow you to see the source, modify it, distribute your mods, sell it (freely)? All it asks is that if you use it, you respect the same freedoms with your code. You don't like it? Don't use it.
@jdixon: i am not following you.
the GPL is a copyright license. a violation of the GPL IS a copyright violation.
independent from copyright, for which the law clearly states that i am allowed to selectively enforce it at will, in civil matters, i can choose who i enforce the law against. if someone trespasses my property, then i decide if i call the police or not. if i tolerate the neighbor kids using my pool even when i am not at home, that doesn't imply that i now have to allow everyone else to use it too. i can still get them for trespassing. i am effectively giving the neighbors permission, so they are not actually trespassing.
here is a thought: the reason why equal enforcement matters, is because the law applies equally to everyone. however, i am not required to give everyone the same copyright license. if i decide not to pursue a particular violation, i am effectively giving them a different license. (a license that effectively says: you are allowed to do this until i decide to stop you)
greetings, eMBee.
the GPL is a copyright license. a violation of the GPL IS a copyright violation.
independent from copyright, for which the law clearly states that i am allowed to selectively enforce it at will, in civil matters, i can choose who i enforce the law against. if someone trespasses my property, then i decide if i call the police or not. if i tolerate the neighbor kids using my pool even when i am not at home, that doesn't imply that i now have to allow everyone else to use it too. i can still get them for trespassing. i am effectively giving the neighbors permission, so they are not actually trespassing.
here is a thought: the reason why equal enforcement matters, is because the law applies equally to everyone. however, i am not required to give everyone the same copyright license. if i decide not to pursue a particular violation, i am effectively giving them a different license. (a license that effectively says: you are allowed to do this until i decide to stop you)
greetings, eMBee.
to turn the discussion back to the original argument:
this is exactly what linus thinks is problematic. he believes that the GPL should not be enforced, but that violators should be educated until they stop violating the GPL on their own accord.
greetings, eMBee.
Quoting:It's not enforcing the GPL against known violators that's problematic
this is exactly what linus thinks is problematic. he believes that the GPL should not be enforced, but that violators should be educated until they stop violating the GPL on their own accord.
greetings, eMBee.
> the GPL is a copyright license. a violation of the GPL IS a copyright violation.
Because the GPL is built on top of copyright. But technically I believe it's a primarily a usage license.
Regardless, I've make my hypothetical case to the best of my ability, which is that if the GPL isn't enforced against known violators, we run the risk of losing the ability to enforce it at all..
Because the GPL is built on top of copyright. But technically I believe it's a primarily a usage license.
Regardless, I've make my hypothetical case to the best of my ability, which is that if the GPL isn't enforced against known violators, we run the risk of losing the ability to enforce it at all..
Quoting:to turn the discussion back to the original argument:
Quoting: It's not enforcing the GPL against known violators that's problematic
this is exactly what linus thinks is problematic. he believes that the GPL should not be enforced, but that violators should be educated until they stop violating the GPL on their own accord.
greetings, eMBee.
AFAIK: (oddly enough) the very same people that Linus is bitching about (Bradley Kuhn and SFC, among others) believe in -- and explicitly recommend -- the educational approach, remediation first, and all that... and reserve taking actual legal action against GPL violators for those particular, recalcitrant actors who refuse to "mend their ways" / decline to get into compliance with the license.
To my knowledge you are correct, BernardSwiss. They do in fact recommend education first. Of course, giving the entity causing the injury a chance to make things right before going to court is also a sound and widely recognized legal practice.
indeed they do try education first, until they reach a point where the conclude that it doesn't work and switch to the legal approach, whereas linus basically insists to never ever use the legal approach.
greetings, eMBee.
greetings, eMBee.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
i am aware of that principle, but it doesn't apply to copyright.
http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2011/08/how-to-lose-your-co... https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism...
greetings, eMBee.