From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4d70a6d53a28095 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GtkAda License Question References: <1150717691.939423.322620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150810262.12414.7.camel@localhost> From: M E Leypold Date: 20 Jun 2006 17:03:43 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.231.248 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1150815476 88.72.231.248 (20 Jun 2006 16:57:56 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4865 Date: 2006-06-20T17:03:43+02:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:46 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > M E Leypold a �crit : > > >> users are always > > >> required by law to ascertain the licensing terms with the licensor. The > > > > > > Which is obvious nonsense, since that would render all GPL licensing > > > as practiced presently invalid. Also I'd like to ask "which law"? US > > > law? International copyright law? > > > > > Hmmm, before making such a statement, you should know that Robert Dewar > > *is* a lawyer, i.e. he is a registered expert to the court about matters > > of software copyright. > > Also notice that every time you install just about any software, > then in Europe at least, > you must explicitly (and knowingly) confirm that you agree to the > licensing terms. I'd like to offer 2 observations here (but IANAL): (1) There were various companies which didn't think the GPL binding for exactly that reason (they hadn't clicked any boxes ..., meaning, they hadn't agreed explicitly to anything). Their vie didn't hold up in the courts. (It was somthing about firewalling, Harald Welte was the owner of the code in question). (2) According to the FSF the GPL is no licensing _contract_ but a "grant of rights". The other side doesn't need to agree, since the default would be "no rights". (Of course Dan Bernstein of QMail fame disagrees here). This has no impact on Robert Dewar's quote. He holds that whatever rights are granted with the file COPYING or in the file headers, it's not binding and there are no rights given, you "have to check with the licensor". I doubt that. (3) If we stay with the contractual model. In German law (which is no case law like American or UK law), there is the concept of "konkludentes Handeln" which I would roughly translate as "implied consent". I have not seen it applied to the GPL situation (yet), but the idea is, that a contract manifests itself even in simple transactions at the supermarket checkout, since whereas both sides probably don't say anything like "I agree that I take the money and you get the goods" the circumstances and the actions speak for themselves: One gives moneay, the other takes it and that is what you do in a super market: buying goods. Applying that to the usual way of distributing GPL software: Just unpacking the sources, reading COPYING and then using the source to generate an executable would be "implied consent". "Well, Mr. Judge, I read, that they thought that the code should be used under the GPL, yes, but I thought it somehow would not apply to me or was just any old COPYING files". Rather believable. > I believe it is a requirement of EU contractual procedures that > you must check corresponding boxes. (Which again is probably not > enough for such and such, etc...) I don't think so. There have been some attempts to make it so (EU law is such a nice argument if you want to twist national law into something else ...), but mostly with respect to default warranties etc which can only be restricgted by explicit agreement. That interacts with the GPL but it's NOT generall required for the user to check boxes in Europe to get rights under the GPL. I live there. But IANAL: Don't construe that as legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. > (Opposed to this requirement, I remember arguments that the > sentence "by opening this box you agree to ... contained therein" > is irrelevant.) That is "licensing". And since you bought the box, there is already a contract, which cannot be restricted again by a text in the box. Other situation. > IANAL. IANAL2 (I'm not a lawer too). Considering how f***ed up by legal pits and traps the internet has become, this propably should become the new standard greeting in forums and usenet. "IANAL!". "IANAL2!". Regards -- Markus