Hi Sergio

Your post was pretty rantish, almost to the point where I dismissed it 
as 'trolling'. On another forum I would ignore it. Since you make 
patently untrue statements I feel that in the interests of clearing 
things up I'll 'clarify' some things.

First, a general statement on copyright. Copyright is a concept broadly 
recognized world-wide. There are (few) exceptions, but, the copyright 
concept is 'universal'. In almost all cases, copyright is, by law, given 
to the author of a work whether there is a 'declaration of copyright' or 
not. If you write something, it is copyrighted by default, and the 
copyright is owned by the author. Many employment contracts and 'work 
for hire' contracts change the default owner of the copyright (to the 
employer rather than the employee), but there is still copyright.

The owner of copyright material can choose to then let people copy their 
work (or chose to not let people copy their work - this is a very 
important option for a copyright owner too). The most liberal author 
will choose to release their work in to the public domain. Work in the 
public domain has no restrictions on it's use (it has no copyright 
owner). Any other items (other than public domain) require a license to 
be used (copied).

So, as a person who wants to use copyrighted works, you require a 
license. There are no alternatives. Any copying of a copyrighted work 
for which you do not have a license is a contravention of copyright law 
(note, it is not a crime!.... that is something else....).

What does a 'copyright license' give to a person? It gives the person 
the right to make copies of the work as 'negotiated' between the person 
and the copyright holder. You must realize that a copyright license is 
given by the copyright owner, and, for the most part, the motivators of 
the copyright owner determine the nature of the copyright license that 
will be agreed to. It is worth repeating this... *the motivating goals 
of the copyright owner determine the way thier works are licensed*. It 
is not unusual for a copyright owner to allow their work to be copied 
under multiple different licenses simultaneously. This allows the owner 
to satisfy different and sometimes contradictory motivations 
simultaneously (like a book author who licenses their work to a 
publisher under one agreement, and to hollywood under another...). 
Multiple licenses are more complicated, but very useful too (MySQL is a 
good example in the software/GPL world see 
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/ ).

So, what is the GPL? It is just one of many ways to license a 'third 
party' to copy a copyrighted work. When talking about the GPL it is very 
important to distinguish it from other licenses so that you can get a 
perspective on what issues it tries to address, and why an author would 
choose the GPL rather than some other license.

My personal 'investigation' shows that there are three types of author 
that will choose the GPL as a license for their software:
1. A person who starts a project which they are not fully able to 
complete, either because of time constraints, or skill/experience 
shortcommings. They have produced something that needs completion, and 
they can't do it themselves. They choose the GPL because it may attract 
people who complement themselves and provide the necessary resources to 
complete the project. In this case, the aspect of the GPL that is most 
useful to the author is that any changes that other people make (and 
distribute) are required to be published along with their distribution. 
In the worst case, this means that the author can 'seive' through the 
code in the 'wild' and retrieve these modifications, and apply them, at 
the author's discretion, back to their code and take advantage of the 
modifications. In reality, the process is typically centralized around 
the author, and changes are all submitted to the 'source', and the 
product evolves to completion. This type of arrangement works when the 
original author has created a good foundation to a useful project. In 
this situation, the value that the original auther gets is to have a 
complete product that they can use themselves. Their 'payment' is a 
increasingly functional/evolving product.

2. A person may choose the GPL if the software is to be part of a larger 
project that contains GPL'd works too. Restrictions in the GPL mean that 
GPL code is not easily compatible with code available with other 
licenses. Thus, a person who wants to create a new product that works in 
combination with an existing GPL product will have the choice of either: 
a. not using the GPL, but then having to re-implement the existing GPL 
product and re-creating the GPL functionality; b. negotiating a seperate 
license from the existing GPL product's copyright holder(s) to be 
compatible with their intended license for their new code; or c: using 
the GPL themselves. In many cases, the 'cost' of releasing your new code 
under the GPL is far outweighed by the burden of having to re-create 
functionality that already exists but is GPL'd. The advantage of using 
the GPL in this case is that the time to completion of the project is 
greatly reduced because you can use vast code resources and not 
re-implement existing functionality.

3. A person may feel 'generous' and use the GPL. There are a number of 
people that have received many benefits from having 'free/cheap' access 
to GPL'd resources. They produce something useful themselves and decide 
to 'give back' to the 'community' in kind. There are lots of 'charity' 
type organisations, or other bodies like student bodies, etc. that 
utilize GPL'd code extensively. In their 'normal course' of operation, 
they happen to produce something useful and new, and they choose to be 
altruistic and simply release it under terms they are familiar with: to 
'set it free'.


The provisions of the GPL that are most significant, as far as this 
discussion is concerned, are the following:
i) The concept of derived code - any code that contains code licensed 
under the GPL is considered to be derived code. This is a common concept 
with copyright, but not all licenses have the same 'broad' sweep as 
saying that even small snippets of GPL code embedded in a new work 
render the entire new work a derivative of the code.
ii) The people who receive the GPL code from the author have the choice 
to either: use the code under the provisions of the GPL, or to not use 
the code at all. This is not an 'opt-out' license, but, and opt in 
license. Without the GPL there would ne no license to use the code, you 
can choose to accept the license, and, if you do, you can use the code 
as allowed by the terms of the license. A third alternative is to 
attempt to negotiate a different license from the copyright holders.
iii) all people receiving code from a third party who has accepted the 
terms of the GPL must be offered the same choice as the third party was 
offered. In other words, if you accept the GPL terms for some program, 
and then you offer that program to someone else (with or without 
modifications), then the offer must be based on the same terms that you 
accepted: the GPL.
iv) the GPL does not restrict the way you use the program, only the way 
you distribute the program. There is no restiction on program or code 
use, but, if the program, or code is delivered to another party, then 
the restrictions of the GPL are activated, in that any distributed GPL 
code/programs and their derivatives must have the source available too, 
and that the terms of the distribution are the same as the way the code 
came in to you posession... in other words, you must give the code away 
under the same terms as the way you received the code.
v) the GPL license is very easy to negotiate in the sense that you do 
not need to open up communication channels with the copyright holder(s) 
to obtain a license. The simple act of choosing to distribute GPL code 
implies that the negotiation is complete, and that you have accepted the 
terms. Additionally, the GPL ensures that any people who receive the GPL 
code from third party get their license from the copyright owner, and 
not the distributor. This greatly simplifies the legal complexities of 
copyright.

Now, the GPL is not for everyone. It does not claim to be. But, for some 
people it makes sense to use the GPL as a license for their copyright 
works. The Linux situation is classic in the sense that there are 
thousands of people who own the copyright to respective sections of the 
code. without the GPL it would be a nightmare to try to negotiate the 
terms of re-distribution. With the GPL the terms are clear, and easy to 
manage.

So, to go through your mail in detail:


sergio masci wrote:
> All this GPL stuff is so much BS.
>
> Copyright works because governments recognise it, in fact one of the 
> things the UN was set up to supervise was... yes you've guessed it 
> copyright.
>   
GPL is copyright. Copyleft is a term used to describe the way that the 
GPL copyright license encourages the freedom of the code (not the 
freedom of the distributor). Typical copyright licenses restrict the 
freedom of the copyright work, but the GPL ensures that access to the 
code is always possible. The international copyright systems that 
protect the way that copyright material is used are just as relevant for 
GPL code as any other copyright license. In your terms, the UN and other 
government systems protect the GPL as much as any other copyright license.

> Some a*hole can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same 
> legal weight as copyright. Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke 
> screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even less water.
>
>   
Umm... Copyleft is not a license, it is a concept that is enforced 
through copyright law and licenses like the GPL (and others). As for 
expecting the GPL to have 'the same legal weight', well, absolutely. To 
expect the GPL to carry a different weight to other copyright licenses 
would be contrary to all legal systems I know of.
> Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or services and then 
> apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the source code and then 
> saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you can" is a BIG 
> no no.
>
>   
The flaw in your above argument is that you are making assumptions that 
are not true. You are assuming that the restrictions are "applied after 
the fact". This is patently wrong. There are a number of opportunities 
for a person to discover how the code is licensed.

Firstly, by law, you have to assume that very work is copyrighted. Just 
because something is on the internet does not mean it is a free-for-all.

Secondly, every work licensed under the GPL is required to have the 
license distributed as part of the package. It is not hard to find the 
license.

Thirdly, to 'fall foul' of the GPL, you need to make changes to GPL'd 
code. To do so means that you first have to see the GPL'd code. The top 
portion of every GPL'd source dile has the GPL license prominently 
displayed, or referenced, as well as the copyright notices.

To suggest that the restrictions are only applied 'after the fact'  is 
disengenous. To be naieve of the copyright license after making and 
distributing modifications to the code is incredulous.

> Secondly, if anyone were mad enough to try to enforce GPL through 
> litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages. Can someone 
> please explain to me how the original authors of the software have 
> incurred a financial loss because an individual did not respect GPL. I 
> mean the original authors are getting zero finiancial compensation for the 
> code they have made public so exactly how much are they loesing if someone 
> else derives a work from theirs and will not share his source, let me see 
> 0 times 1,000,000 - yep still ZERO!!!
>
>   
Well, this is an interesting argument. But, it has very simple remedies 
(depending on your legal system).

The first situation to consider is where a party has distributed the 
modified code 'for profit'. Since the intention of a copyright holder 
that uses the GPL as a license is clearly to allow for the freedom of 
the code at the expense of profit (GPL software comes at no cost, except 
for distribution costs), and that the license requires this third party 
to distribute the code in the same manner, it is clear that all income 
the third party has derived is clearly not owed to them. Since this 
income is related to the contravening distribution of someone else's 
work it is clear that the actual income earned should be forfeited, and 
the natural destination of that income is the copyright owner. It is 
possible that the third party could have negotiated some fee-based 
license from the copyright holder that allowed the third party to 
distribute modifications without releasing the source too. The third 
party failed or neglected to do so, and it is at their expense, not the 
copyright holder's.

The second situation where remedies are appropriate are where the 
Jurisdiction's laws have 'statutory' damages set. This is normally a 
'punitive' law that is meant as a deterrant. In other words, the law 
takes the opinion that copyright infringment should be punnished 
regardless of the 'size' of the infringement. This is similar, for 
example, to laws related to theft. You are sentenced to similar jail 
terms regardless of whether you steal 1,000,000 from a bank or $100 from 
an old friend. Stealing is stealing and the punnishment is the same 
(though in both cases the thief has to reimburse the victim). Some legal 
systems have the same attitude to copyright infringement (which maybe is 
a good thing, or maybe not).

Finally, the normal remedies for these situations (where the courts have 
in fact enforced the GPL - and the infringers were found liable), are 
numerous: to stop distributing their modifications; to apply the GPL to 
their modifications; and in some cases to pay money.

While it is very lenient, most occasions where the GPL has gone to court 
have resulted in a change of attitude only for the infringer. The 
copyright owner has seldom attempted to get damages.
> And what REALLY gets up my nose is the argument that having access to the 
> source means the user can fix it. Please, give me a break. Having access 
> to the source actually means that you have a garantee that you can't be 
> charged for minor fixes made by someone else. Who in their right mind is 
> going to spend weeks trying to understand how GCC works in order to fix a 
> bug in their own program. What they will actually do is try to figure a 
> work-around
>   
Now, what you have expressed here is another fatal flaw to your entire mail.

Having access to the source means a lot of things. As an 'advanced' end 
user (not a distributor), it has a lot of value. Some of the reasons are:
1. You can re-compile the code in a manner that is better optimized to 
your particular environment.
2. If there happens to be a bug, yes, an 'advanced' user has the 
opportunity to fix it (no need to publish the fix unless you 
re-distribute the program with the fix in place).
3. If there happens to be a new feature you want, an advanced user could 
create it (no need to publish the new feature unless you distribute the 
program with the new feature in place).

Now, since there are so few 'advanced' users who can do the above, the 
access-to-the-source argument has limited applicability. But, what the 
more average user can do is motivate a more advanced person to make the 
desired corrections or enhancements. This motivation may be in the form 
of money, or some other payment. Companies like SuSE, and RedHat make 
their fortunes by providing the 'warrantee' like service to people and 
companies that don't want to make their own fixes. RedHat is essentially 
paid to enhance and maintain programs.

A user simply e-mailing a bug report is often enough to get a prompt fix.

So, to answer your question:
1. a person who is paid to understand GCC will often spend weeks in 
order to fix a bug in some program
2. the author of a program will often spend weeks fixing a fault in the 
program.
3. some third party (like RedHat) will spend time fixing a problem if 
the people who pay them for support raise an issue.
> </rant>
>
> Regards
> Sergio Masci
>   


So, Sergio, the GPL is not for everyone. On the other hand, for those 
people who do use the GPL, a whole community of resources, whether that 
be people, code, testers, and users is immediatly available to 
'leverage' in order to produce a better product.

Your e-mail spins so many fabrications that I find it necessary to 
respond, even though I am somewhat certain you are just trolling.

What person who uses 'Pine' as an e-mail client on a linux machine that 
runs Postfix as a mail server would spout so many mistruths about the GPL?

Rolf
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist