Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

devever.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 202 posts

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#141

Post by [deleted] »

rtpg wrote: post #67
Dylan16807 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> writing the software and integrating it into their products That's distribution, not use. (Except for when they're testing it or running local instances, and GPL doesn't get in the way of those things.) > Not to say GPL is bad, just that the VAT-style "only the last user counts" view of things is playing with semantics. By my understanding VAT doesn't work that way. Once a user pays VAT and starts using something,…

the VAT reference is that businesses don't pay VAT, only end consumers do. If you buy something and then integrate it into another product, then re-sell it you are exempt from VAT (details are more complicated, but it's _not_ like sales tax)

[deleted]

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#142

Post by snickerbockers »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #86
snickerbockers wrote: post #84

Is there any legal significance to "clean-room" reverse-engineering? I hear this term a lot from engineers who seem to think that they're entitled to claim ownership over distinct works created by people who read their source code (and in extreme cases their documentation or even disassembled binaries), but that's not how any other form of intellectual property works.

Yes, there is significant legal precedent for the practice. Sony v. Connectix, Inc. comes to mind. Team A directly reversed Sony's PS1 BIOS and gave the resulting specifications to team B, which then implemented those in source code form.

No, there's nothing about clean-room reverse-engineering in the sony v connectix decision. I suggest you read it.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#143

Post by Dylan16807 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #137
Dylan16807 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> writing the software and integrating it into their products That's distribution, not use. (Except for when they're testing it or running local instances, and GPL doesn't get in the way of those things.) > Not to say GPL is bad, just that the VAT-style "only the last user counts" view of things is playing with semantics. By my understanding VAT doesn't work that way. Once a user pays VAT and starts using something,…

> By my understanding VAT doesn't work that way. Once a user pays VAT and starts using something, that's it. The taxes are done with, and VAT doesn't pass on to later users. VAT works something like this: when you buy X, you pay VAT on X. If you then sell X, you reclaim the VAT on X from the government. The last "user", the one that didn't sell X to anyone else (or integrate it into a larger product that they sell to…

I'm making a distinction between "user" in scare quotes and actual user.

If you did nothing but buy it, hold it, and sell it on, you didn't use the product. If you integrated it and sold it on, you didn't use the product.

Once you start actually using it, once it becomes a 'used product', selling it has no VAT and you cannot reclaim VAT. At least that's what google results told me. Were they wrong?

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#144

Post by xorcist »

Comevius wrote: post #35

I rather use Mozilla Public License 2.0, Eclipse Public License 2.0, or EUPL 1.2 for copyleft purposes. Strong copyleft as a concept has no legal reality. Linking a program to another don't produce a derivative work. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-l... FSF is full of baloney about how static or dynamic linking is different than communicating for example through sockets. To be able to use t…

No legal reality? After 30 years of numerous court cases, in various jurisdictions, all holding up the GPL? After many legal scholars weighing in on the matter?

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#145

Post by trasz »

admax88qqq wrote: post #46
Comevius wrote: post #35

I rather use Mozilla Public License 2.0, Eclipse Public License 2.0, or EUPL 1.2 for copyleft purposes. Strong copyleft as a concept has no legal reality. Linking a program to another don't produce a derivative work. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-l... FSF is full of baloney about how static or dynamic linking is different than communicating for example through sockets. To be able to use t…

What? The FSF and copyright in general does not worry about static vs dynamic linking. They focus on "derivative works.". The only question that matters is "does this piece of software derive from this other piece.". How they are linked together has no meaning. Hackers like to misunderstand that and think they can work around the GPL by how they bundle the two pieces together. The CLISP case is a classic example. It…

What if the readline was really libedit(3), a BSD equivalent with the same API/ABI? How is the app a derived work of readline then?

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#146

Post by tsimionescu »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #143
tsimionescu wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By my understanding VAT doesn't work that way. Once a user pays VAT and starts using something, that's it. The taxes are done with, and VAT doesn't pass on to later users. VAT works something like this: when you buy X, you pay VAT on X. If you then sell X, you reclaim the VAT on X from the government. The last "user", the one that didn't sell X to anyone else (or integrate it into a larger product that they sell to…

I'm making a distinction between "user" in scare quotes and actual user . If you did nothing but buy it, hold it, and sell it on, you didn't use the product. If you integrated it and sold it on, you didn't use the product. Once you start actually using it, once it becomes a 'used product', selling it has no VAT and you cannot reclaim VAT. At least that's what google results told me. Were they wrong?

The whole point of VAT is that there is no such definition of "used product" or "end user". If you buy a book from a store, and have a receipt showing that you paid 1$ + 10 cents VAT, then you later sell the book to someone else for 2$, you owe the government 20 cents VAT on your sale - 10 cents which was already paid, so a total of 10 cents.

The exact law may be more complicated (you may have to pay the full 20 cents now and file for a 10 cents tax rebate; you may not be eligible for this if you are an individual and not a registered organization, etc.) but that shouldn't affect the basic principle.

For example, if you buy a computer for 100$+10$ VAT, and you then use that computer in you back office to keep your accounting, and you sell 1000$+100$ VAT worth of haircuts in the month where you bought the computer, you only owe the government 90$ of VAT even though you are an end user of the computer by any reasonable definition.

If you later sell the computer on to a refurbisher for 50$+5$VAT, and the refurbisher sells it on for 75$+7.5$ VAT, they will only owe the government 2.5$ VAT.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#147

Post by throwawaylinux »

tsimionescu wrote: post #135
throwawaylinux wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the license is void then copyright law applies.

Yes, but copying a piece of software from a CD into program memory or onto my own hard-drive for archival purposes has been established as a fair-use exemption. So, if I legally acquire a copy of a program (say, I buy a CD), it can't impose extra restrictions after-the-fact through an EULA that only appears when I run it, and I am well within my rights to use my copy (e.g. by copying it into RAM/CPU icache to run it)…

> Yes, but copying a piece of software from a CD into program memory or onto my own hard-drive for archival purposes has been established as a fair-use exemption. So, if I legally acquire a copy of a program (say, I buy a CD), it can't impose extra restrictions after-the-fact through an EULA that only appears when I run it, and I am well within my rights to use my copy (e.g. by copying it into RAM/CPU icache to run it) even if I don't abide by the EULA, according to European Union jurisprudence.

We're talking about the GPLv2 though. It imposes no restrictions that copyright does not impose, so voiding the license is strictly a detriment to the licensee. The people who wrote it were very clever, using the power of copyright that is lobbied-for by the proprietary software industry.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#148

Post by eqvinox »

There is a difference between derivative works and composite works. Please learn it. (This specifically applies to the userspace boundary discussions in this article, but for modules it's not 100% clear-cut either.)

I'm not going to try to explain it here because I'm not a lawyer and don't want to propagate what could be my flawed understanding. I do think I've understood it and that it matters here. There's probably a few good explainers from legally versed people out there on the WWW.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#149

Post by Borealid »

Jiro wrote: post #138
Borealid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's some confusion in the above post. The relevant "derived work" definition for the purpose of linking isn't one stemming from copyright law, it's the one in the GPL itself. This is because the GPL defines what licensees are permitted to do with the licensed work, and it imposes restrictions on those rights. Copyright law by default lets you make very little use of the software - the GPL broadens that ou…

>Said differently, the GPL doesn't try to apply itself to "derived works" because of some contralegal dictum they don't have a different creative origin. It merely says "you have two choices - license the things you link with OUR stuff under OUR terms, or you don't have the right to use our stuff". The GPL doesn't restrict use, and says so. When people say that the GPL only lets you use the work under the author's te…

Making a copy of a copyrighted work (duplication) is one of the fundamental actions that usually requires a license. It is difficult to find a way to take another action with the work without first duplicating it.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#150

Post by butlerm »

tsimionescu wrote: post #131
belorn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's remove the license and just look at what copyright says in order to understand your example. You have some copyrighted work and you want to make copies, and you do not have a copyright license from the author of said work. It this legal? Answer is mostly going to be no, especially if you are going to sell the copies. Commercially exploiting someones else's copyrighted work without a license is very often illega…

The main point of my argument, and the main concern I feel with GPL-style licenses, is the notion of "do I have to distribute my work under the terms of the GPL even if I don't distribute any GPL code directly; in other words, when is my program a derived work of a GPL work?". If instead I am distributing GPL code directly, the question is more clear - as you say, copyright law makes few exceptions there. But again,…

Unfortunately the FSF's idea of what a derivative work is largely something they made up with no basis in statutory law and which has never been tested in court. It basically consists of wishful thinking on their part.

In the US, a derivative work has a legal definition in Title 17 of the United States Code, and anything that is purportedly a derivative work that doesn't clearly fall under the legal definition or established common law on the subject is of little matter. Lawyers love to engage in wishful thinking on behalf of their clients and rarely get anywhere because they are not neutral arbiters but rather advocates for a one sided position of one kind or another.

In this case FSF associated lawyers appear to be completely out of touch with reality, but are incredibly influential in persuading others to be equally out of touch. And what more could you ask of an advocate for your position than that? A reality distortion field for hire.

Post reply on HN