Thesis and the GPL • Hacker News Board

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#21

Post by slantyyz » Sun, Jul 18, 2010, 10:24 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #12

sscheper wrote: post #4

Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?

Is it moral to make money from other people's work against both their wishes and the terms of their license?

Morality, Ethics, Capitalism, License Agreements and the Law... no matter how you may see that they overlap, they're all separate things.

In the end, it's the laws of the land that you're in that matters. As far as I know, I don't believe that these arguments on what is a derivative work are anything more than opinion. Settled cases are not equivalent to legal precedent.

The best thing that could happen for everyone involved is that it goes to trial and ends with a judgement, and then all this posturing and pontificating will hopefully come to a merciful end.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#22

Post by cschwarm » Sun, Jul 18, 2010, 11:26 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #16

hristov wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not actually work like this. I am sure Thesis does include at least some original (i.e., not previously GPLed) work. Thus, the person that created that original work is the proper copyright holder. Thus, if you copy Thesis you will be guilty of copyright infringement, and the fact that it does include some GPL code won't help you. As the matter now stands, if it is true that they use GPLed code, that means th…

I was about to argue this, but the more I thought about it, I agree with it. To put it as I understand it, using GPL code doesn't automatically make your code GPL; it places a legal requirement on you to either license your code as GPL, or to not distribute the source or product. If the author doesn't license his software, then nobody else can take and use it, but the author is in violation of copyright due to the un…

IIRC, the following article by Pamela Jones of Groklaw discusses the issue: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#23

Post by joshkaufman » Sun, Jul 18, 2010, 11:47 PM UTC

wzdd wrote: post #17

joshkaufman wrote: post #2

There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…

People are taking issue with the specific legal test you're proposing, but the fact that you are proposing a legal test as a way of resolving the issue is very sensible. This is a legal issue, and it should be tested using the law. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this doesn't seem to be the way suspected GPL violations are resolved. More frequently there is a community consensus and a public shaming of the responsible…

Absolutely - in this case, I don't think any amount of public shaming will convince Pearson to give up millions in ongoing revenue. The only way to test this legally is for someone to step up and take the risk of legal action, so a court can rule on it.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#24

Post by hristov » Mon, Jul 19, 2010, 6:58 AM UTC

jp_sc wrote: post #19

ekiru wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to confusion as in your comment. IANAL…

The clause 5 of the GPL v2 says: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. **Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this Licens…

This is a good point, but honestly I doubt this particular provision will be enforced by the courts.

If Thesis is to be held to this provision, it actually requires a contract formation, which means that the Thesis owners must have been aware of this GPL provision and must have intended to enter into a contractual relationship and all the other conditions of contract formations must have existed. This is really questionable. The Thesis owners could say that they were never aware of this provision and they never intended to be bound by it.

Of course if they say that, they will not qualify under the GPL, which may mean they are guilty of copyright infringement (if they do use GPLed code). But it is still possible that they can hold this position and accept their copyright liability (or perhaps try to use other arguments to deny their liability under copyright law). And if they do hold this position and if you have copied the Thesis code, then you are yourself guilty of copyright infringement and have no excuse.

So, I would not rely on section 5 of the GPL in this case.

This is all academic discussion, none of this is legal advice, and if you are actually considering using the Thesis software, please consult your own attorney.