OSDev.org

Gigasoft wrote: Of course, the owner is not bound by it (he is not the "you" that the license refers to).

skyking wrote: The (sole) copyright owner has the right to produce copies anyway. The receiver may not make copies unless the copyright owner gives his permission in some way. Basically the GPL gives the receiver, if he chooses to accept the terms of the GPL, to produce copies (which he can't unless he has possession of the source code without breaking the terms).

The "you" that the license refers to is the distributor. If a project is distributed under the GPL, the distributor has an obligation to provide the source, regardless of whether they own the copyright. Copyright ownership does not give you special status under the GPL, you are still bound by your own license. Anyone could take legal action if the distributor withholds the source in this case.

Combuster wrote:In fact, the actual restriction is formulated in the 3rd and 0th clause of the GPL: (3) If you distribute you have to add an (offer) for sending the source, and (0) If you label something as GPL then you are bound by its license.

Couldn't find it in GPL 3, so I think you may be referring to the following sentence in GPL 2: 0. This License applies to 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. However, later it says Each licensee is addressed as "you". So, as I understand it, the copyright holder is not the "you" named in clause 3.

xvedejas wrote:Copyright ownership does not give you special status under the GPL, you are still bound by your own license.

A license is something granted by one party to another. The "Licensee" is the person who receives the license, and is the one named "you" in the GPL. People who are not the copyright holder are given rights under certain conditions. The copyright holder does not need to comply with the conditions of the license in order to have those rights, because he already has them by law. The copyright holder has no obligations. It is in fact impossible for a party to create obligations for oneself by granting a public license, because a public license is not a contract. (A valid contract requires that both parties offer something known as consideration.)

As for the statement "Anyone could take legal action if the distributor withholds the source in this case", how could they ever do that without being a party of a contract? Obviously, they couldn't sue them for copyright infringement either, since they aren't copyright holders.

Actually, the GPL is a funny license in that it is not binding on the copyright owner - they can do whatever they like. Other licenses, such as the MPL, are, however.

On the other hand, claiming a work to be GPLed and not releasing the source is certainly acting in bad faith.

Hi:

When you write software, you copyright it, and distribute it. If you state no terms to govern its use, then it is assumed that you are providing it in such a manner that it can be used in any way the user sees fit.

If you have, for whatever reason, a need to place terms of use on the user, you first very clearly document these limitations/constraints, and have the software distributed in such a manner that the user must explicitly express agreement with the terms that you put forward. This is what a license is all about.

If you have no need to limit the use of the software then you need no license. However, in today's legality-rife world, you may wish to protect yourself. So you generally are advised to have a license agreement with your end users which very clearly disclaims all possibility of liability for as many things as you can blanket off with cunning language.

For people who just want to make sure that their software cannot be used by some unscrupulous user to drag them into a court case, a simple license such as the BSD, or ISC, etc license will do. Persons who use GPL licenses want to be able to hand out their software with the condition that the end user cannot redistribute the software in any way that will not provide the source, or a reference to it, or a means otherwise to obtain it.

And yes, the GPL states very clearly that the distributor must make available upon request the source for the distributed work. Any loopholes you find will be countered with the 'spirit' of the license, which is provided as a blanket 'catch-all haterz' thing.

Hi,

As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer); the owner has the rights to do whatever they want. If the owner distributes software under the GPL without also making the source code available, then that's fine (the copyright doesn't apply to the copyright owner). However, for GPL, third-parties who distribute the software must also make the source code available, and if third-parties are unable to make the source code available (e.g. because the owner never made it available to them) then the GPL prevents third-parties from being able to distribute the software at all.


Cheers,

Brendan

Owen wrote:Actually, the GPL is a funny license in that it is not binding on the copyright owner - they can do whatever they like. Other licenses, such as the MPL, are, however.

That's not a property of the GPL, it's how copyright works. Not sure what the MPL looks like exactly, but it can't possibly bind the copyright owner.

When you write a piece of software, you as the copyright holder are the only one that is allowed to do anything with that software. Now you can give others the permission to use/copy/modify/... that software - you're granting them a license, which may contain some restrictions and conditions ("You may only distribute this software if you also distribute its source"). Obviously, you don't need to grant yourself a license, because you already have all right. And therefore you can't be bound by the terms of a license. (Even if you granted yourself that license, you could always use the other "license" that you already have by copyright law and that doesn't impose any restrictions).

Think about dual-licensing. It wouldn't even be possible in your model. Or maybe it becomes even more obvious if you forget open source licenses for a moment - do you really think MS is bound by its EULA?

Kevin wrote:

Owen wrote:Actually, the GPL is a funny license in that it is not binding on the copyright owner - they can do whatever they like. Other licenses, such as the MPL, are, however.

That's not a property of the GPL, it's how copyright works. Not sure what the MPL looks like exactly, but it can't possibly bind the copyright owner.

When you write a piece of software, you as the copyright holder are the only one that is allowed to do anything with that software. Now you can give others the permission to use/copy/modify/... that software - you're granting them a license, which may contain some restrictions and conditions ("You may only distribute this software if you also distribute its source"). Obviously, you don't need to grant yourself a license, because you already have all right. And therefore you can't be bound by the terms of a license. (Even if you granted yourself that license, you could always use the other "license" that you already have by copyright law and that doesn't impose any restrictions).

Think about dual-licensing. It wouldn't even be possible in your model. Or maybe it becomes even more obvious if you forget open source licenses for a moment - do you really think MS is bound by its EULA?

Some licenses (Most notably the MPL) contain provisions which are binding on the copyright holder - in the MPL's case, you irrevocably grant some rights with regards to the source code when you release something under the MPL. Of course, for this discussion, the MPL is irrelevant as it is purely a source code license.

Perhaps the GPL isn't unusual, but it is the case that some licenses have binding requirements upon the original copyright owner (and upon all contributors).

Of course, all licenses imply that the copyright holder grants rights, otherwise they're not valid licenses. But no public licenses can ever obligate the copyright holder to do something (otherwise it would have to be an offer, not a license).

gravaera wrote:And yes, the GPL states very clearly that the distributor must make available upon request the source for the distributed work. Any loopholes you find will be countered with the 'spirit' of the license, which is provided as a blanket 'catch-all haterz' thing.

I'd be interested in knowing how you think the "spirit" of a license can turn a public license into a contract and turn the licenser into the licensee. If you by distributor also mean the copyright holder, then remember that for the copyright holder to have an obligation towards another party, the other party must also provide something of value to the copyright holder that it would not otherwise have to provide, for it to be a valid contract.

Owen wrote:Some licenses (Most notably the MPL) contain provisions which are binding on the copyright holder - in the MPL's case, you irrevocably grant some rights with regards to the source code when you release something under the MPL. Of course, for this discussion, the MPL is irrelevant as it is purely a source code license.

Right, in this sense the author is bound by the license. Once he has granted it, he can't revoke it. That's the very same with GPL. But again, this is not about the author's rights on the software, but about the rights of other persons. He may not be able to take that right away again later, but he still has all rights to do with the software what he wants, including distribution without source code.

All that under the assumption that the author is the copyright holder (which is true under most jurisdictions) and that he hasn't granted anyone else exclusive rights (obviously).

The point is, you release under the GPL if you want to share source, you release under BSD licenses if you don't care either way, and you say all rights reserved if you don't want anything to be shared. Whether or not you actually can release only binaries under the GPL is irrelevant, because no sane copyright holder would want to be so legally contrary as to GPL license something without releasing its source. It's like eating soup with a fork when a spoon is equally available.