Salve FSF-Europe, I don`t want to bother you with SCO, but BBC is calling for comments, & maybe some of you like to answer to this BBC article:
BBC Technologie Friday, 29 August, 2003, 13:43 GMT 14:43 UK
Linux community told to 'get real'
The Linux community should come down from the moral high ground, says technology analyst Bill Thompson
"Linux is a great operating system, and free software is a vital alternative to the buggy systems sold by Microsoft and other large companies. It is not perfect though, and it is not immune from copyright law just because it is morally superior. The Linux community needs to accept that this could be a real problem, and put processes in place to make sure it cannot happen instead of simply dismissing all criticism as unfounded. "
This statement is quite OK, but who is Bill Thompson? This BBC article sugesst that SCO has a Copyright - BTW SCOX is over 14$ high again.
"Should the Linux community get off their high-horses and face the realities of copyright? Send us your comments:"
Visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm
Greetings rob
On my recent quest to compare contracts, licenses, and the GPL, I stumbled across something that is disconcerting to me: the moral rights provided by the Berne Convention seem to impose limits on the freedom provided by the GPL.
The GPL does not appear to make any mention of moral rights, so according to the convention (and some law resources I checked) the moral rights stay with the author (even in the case of copyright assignment).
As stated, the concerning bit is the author's ability "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
Best as I can tell, what might be accepted as prejudicial may vary greatly from country to country. This of course makes the problem worse, as the GPL does not join licenses, when distributing the linux kernel, you actually have a license from every copyright holder contributing to that kernel.
What is to prevent any one contributor to a large GPL project from objecting on moral grounds and thereby halting any distribution/modification? Though our opinions to such objections might vary, I would tend to assume that software is open to such objections.
Op vr 29-08-2003, om 22:34 schreef edA-qa mort-ora-y:
On my recent quest to compare contracts, licenses, and the GPL, I stumbled across something that is disconcerting to me: the moral rights provided by the Berne Convention seem to impose limits on the freedom provided by the GPL.
The funny thing is that these objections are always made in relation to the GPL, while other licenses like BSD/ MIT are far more problematic in this area than the GPL.
The GPL does not appear to make any mention of moral rights,
What license does?
There some Europan license like the Free Art License that do mention it. On the other hand, take a look at the Terms of Use of the Disneysite http://disney.go.com/legal/conditions_of_use.html
By uploading materials to any Forum or submitting any materials to us, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us a perpetual, royalty free, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, and distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed throughout the universe. In addition, you warrant that all so-called ``moral rights'' in those materials have been waived.
so according to the convention (and some law resources I checked) the moral rights stay with the author (even in the case of copyright assignment).
As stated, the concerning bit is the author's ability "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
What is to prevent any one contributor to a large GPL project from objecting on moral grounds and thereby halting any distribution/modification? Though our opinions to such objections might vary, I would tend to assume that software is open to such objections.
This raises interesting concerns. Could Tim Berners-Lee object to an extend and embrace of W3-standards? Could the Kerkeros-team object to an extend & embrace of Microsoft?
I like the way the GPL make people think. Now it just up to us to broaden the issues.
Wouter Vanden Hove http://www.opencursus.be
A Sex, 2003-08-29 às 21:34, edA-qa mort-ora-y escreveu:
On my recent quest to compare contracts, licenses, and the GPL, I stumbled across something that is disconcerting to me: the moral rights provided by the Berne Convention seem to impose limits on the freedom provided by the GPL.
The GPL does not appear to make any mention of moral rights, so according to the convention (and some law resources I checked) the moral rights stay with the author (even in the case of copyright assignment).
"Moral" rights, at least as defined in Portugal, can not be waived by an author's authorisation (aka license). So it's really not worthy mentioning them.
As stated, the concerning bit is the author's ability "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."
Yes, and that's just one of them. You have some variations from country to country.
I am not a lawyer, nor have an academic law education. I've been studying the relation between "moral" rights and the GPL in Portugal. I believe that what I've learned might apply to other countries:
The moral rights can not be waived (neither by authorisation nor contract), but there are some decisions made by the author that limit the exercise of moral rights. One of the "moral" rights is the decision to first publish a work. That one is not exercisable anymore after the decision to publish a work.
Such reasoning also applies for the integrity: if the author allowed specific modification defending the works integrity doesn't make sense.
My only doubt at this moment is the part that pertains to the "prejudicial to his honor or reputation" and derived works. Can an author prevent distribution of a derived work whose distribution and modification he/she authorised? My first answer would be no, but I haven't found such a court case.
Best as I can tell, what might be accepted as prejudicial may vary greatly from country to country. This of course makes the problem worse, as the GPL does not join licenses, when distributing the linux kernel, you actually have a license from every copyright holder contributing to that kernel.
That's one of the reasons FSF requires copyright assignements.
What is to prevent any one contributor to a large GPL project from objecting on moral grounds and thereby halting any distribution/modification? Though our opinions to such objections might vary, I would tend to assume that software is open to such objections.
If he authorised any modification (by using the GPL) I doubt the objection would be valid. In the worst case scenario, probably one of the other authors would be able to replace the contested contribution.
João Miguel Neves wrote:
The moral rights can not be waived (neither by authorisation nor contract), but there are some decisions made by the author that limit
In our friendly litigious society (USA), one can waive these rights, and in neighbouring Canada I thought one couldn't, but then the copyright act implies one can.
Such reasoning also applies for the integrity: if the author allowed specific modification defending the works integrity doesn't make sense.
A concern I would have is in the event of the author's death, when the estate inherits their copyrights. In theory, the estate could then make a moral objection to *any* modification of the work as it devalues the contribution of the original author at a time when they can no longer guide contributions and derivations.
In a sense, could an estate not argue that the code, at time of death, should be maintained as is out of respect, and to honour, the deceased. The argument being that while the person was alive, they intended to continually contribute to the project as to build their fame -- if modifications which removed his contribution after death, would be an afront to the fame/honour that he built.
It's a stretch, but it sounds plausible, and certainly we've seen a lot sillier arguments make it through the judicial system (in regardless of which country we live).
author prevent distribution of a derived work whose distribution and modification he/she authorised? My first answer would be no, but I haven't found such a court case.
My first answer is yes, but my theoretical example (at this time) is from the movie/book industry instead. Author A gives license to Studio B to create a screenplay of their work, which is an inspiring novel about the pursuit of peace. In this agreement A allows a creative license in order to adapt the book to film. Then B goes out and produces a movie that glorifies war and twists the words of the book so that one would believe the author felt peace was only obtainable when one side remains.
Has A actually authorized this adaptation of his work?
That's one of the reasons FSF requires copyright assignements.
But this is where I found it interesting, is that even in the case of copyright assignment, the original author retains their moral rights. However, now the recipient would have a single license from FSF if everybody assigned copyright, but that would not preclude any one of those individuals from raising a moral objection (in which case, the single license may be worse...?)
(Note: I think you meant to say FSF *requests* copyright assignments, as they don't require them for the GPL)
If he authorised any modification (by using the GPL) I doubt the objection would be valid. In the worst case scenario, probably one of the other authors would be able to replace the contested contribution.
Referring to my first example, what if a large system was built, and in order not to prejudice the author's honor, it was no longer legal to remove his contributions?
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 14:06, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
A concern I would have is in the event of the author's death, when the estate inherits their copyrights.
If moral rights are not transferrable, I don't see why the estate would inherit them.
But this is where I found it interesting, is that even in the case of copyright assignment, the original author retains their moral rights. However, now the recipient would have a single license from FSF if everybody assigned copyright, but that would not preclude any one of those individuals from raising a moral objection (in which case, the single license may be worse...?)
You might want to have a look at the FSFE's work with the Fiduciary License Agreement (FLA).
Cheers,
Alex.
A Sáb, 2003-08-30 às 14:21, Alex Hudson escreveu:
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 14:06, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
A concern I would have is in the event of the author's death, when the estate inherits their copyrights.
If moral rights are not transferrable, I don't see why the estate would inherit them.
It's in the portuguese law, and probably in others. Upon the author's death, the state is responsible for defending the paternity and integrity of works.
The baviera state (Germany) has been using this "inheritance" to prevent the (re)publication of Hitler's "Mein Kampf". It caused a bit of a stir, because this was the first case of using copyright to systematically prevent the distribution of a book.
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 09:23, João Miguel Neves wrote:
If moral rights are not transferrable, I don't see why the estate would inherit them.
It's in the portuguese law, and probably in others. Upon the author's death, the state is responsible for defending the paternity and integrity of works.
Hmm, that sucks.
The baviera state (Germany) has been using this "inheritance" to prevent the (re)publication of Hitler's "Mein Kampf". It caused a bit of a stir, because this was the first case of using copyright to systematically prevent the distribution of a book.
I guess that answers the question then - moral rights could prevent a piece of software being published/modified. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be anything we could do about it though.
I do wonder what the system is in this country. I was under the impression the Berne Convention recognised some moral rights, but our laws appear to explicitly exclude computer programs from having such rights attached.
Cheers,
Alex.
The baviera state (Germany) has been using this "inheritance" to prevent the (re)publication of Hitler's "Mein Kampf". It caused a bit of a stir, because this was the first case of using copyright to systematically prevent the distribution of a book.
I guess that answers the question then - moral rights could prevent a piece of software being published/modified. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be anything we could do about it though.
I think it's different. From what I heard no moral rights are involved (actually, if any, moral rights of the author is about publishing again and again).
In this case someone has bought or received by other means the right to reproduce the work. Then nobody else can reproduce it, and if the entity who bought doesn't distribute copies, it's all perfect.
There are rumors around about very innovative patents that have been bought exactly _not_ to industrially implement it, just like a company can buy a competitor to shut it up.
No moral rights in any of these cases.
/alessandro
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 11:27, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
I think it's different. From what I heard no moral rights are involved (actually, if any, moral rights of the author is about publishing again and again).
Indeed. Thinking about it, I guess I agree with you - although, I didn't realise Mein Kampf was some "banned" book (www.hitler.org, for example, seems to have a complete copy). However, as it was authored in 1925 (I think?) I would be guessing copyright doesn't have much say in the matter any more.
Moral rights in this instance are an interesting side issue, but I don't think they're really much of an issue. The case of copyright transferral while the author lives is much more the real issue.
There are rumors around about very innovative patents that have been bought exactly _not_ to industrially implement it, just like a company can buy a competitor to shut it up.
Oh, there are many stories like that - not just patents, any kind of rights. DeBeers are well known for crushing competition, although the recent articles in Wired about industrial diamond creation en masse are extremely interesting (many see diamond as the next step after silicon within the computing industry, mainly because you can run it much hotter - it can survive temperatures that would melt silicon and still function, all the better for making Athlons out of ;).
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 11:27, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
I think it's different. From what I heard no moral rights are involved (actually, if any, moral rights of the author is about publishing again and again).
Indeed. Thinking about it, I guess I agree with you - although, I didn't realise Mein Kampf was some "banned" book (www.hitler.org, for example, seems to have a complete copy). However, as it was authored in 1925 (I think?) I would be guessing copyright doesn't have much say in the matter any more.
Incidentally I heard about it in a TV report the other day. They said it was banned (more precisely, distribution is banned, possession is not AFAIK) in Germany by the state of Bavaria using copyright, but it's available in other countries (which seems somewhat strange since copyright would apply world-wide, but perhaps they choose to allow it abroad, or there are international regulations or whatever ...). They also said the coypright will expire in 2015 (70 years after author's death?), and they can't stop it after then.
Frank
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:47, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 11:27, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
I think it's different. From what I heard no moral rights are involved (actually, if any, moral rights of the author is about publishing again and again).
Indeed. Thinking about it, I guess I agree with you - although, I didn't realise Mein Kampf was some "banned" book (www.hitler.org, for example, seems to have a complete copy). However, as it was authored in 1925 (I think?) I would be guessing copyright doesn't have much say in the matter any more.
Incidentally I heard about it in a TV report the other day. They said it was banned (more precisely, distribution is banned, possession is not AFAIK) in Germany by the state of Bavaria using copyright, but it's available in other countries (which seems somewhat strange since copyright would apply world-wide, but perhaps they choose to allow it abroad, or there are international regulations or whatever ...). They also said the coypright will expire in 2015 (70 years after author's death?), and they can't stop it after then.
A portuguese distributer was prevented from publishing "Mein Kampf" in Portugal by the bavarian government. So, I'd say it's not just in Germany.
A Sáb, 2003-08-30 às 14:06, edA-qa mort-ora-y escreveu:
João Miguel Neves wrote:
author prevent distribution of a derived work whose distribution and modification he/she authorised? My first answer would be no, but I haven't found such a court case.
My first answer is yes, but my theoretical example (at this time) is from the movie/book industry instead. Author A gives license to Studio B to create a screenplay of their work, which is an inspiring novel about the pursuit of peace. In this agreement A allows a creative license in order to adapt the book to film. Then B goes out and produces a movie that glorifies war and twists the words of the book so that one would believe the author felt peace was only obtainable when one side remains.
Has A actually authorized this adaptation of his work?
That's different. That's a derived work that is said to be based on the story and "adapted" it too far. It's still the same story. With GPL the author authorises you to change the story. See the difference?
That's one of the reasons FSF requires copyright assignements.
But this is where I found it interesting, is that even in the case of copyright assignment, the original author retains their moral rights. However, now the recipient would have a single license from FSF if everybody assigned copyright, but that would not preclude any one of those individuals from raising a moral objection (in which case, the single license may be worse...?)
Yes, but you can't legally avoid that. Anyway, the great thing about CVS and source management systems is that they allow you to identify who did what. And every code always needs improvement. So the most plausible result in such a case would be that contributor's code to be replaced by a better version.
(Note: I think you meant to say FSF *requests* copyright assignments, as they don't require them for the GPL)
No, they require copyright assignments for any GNU project.
If he authorised any modification (by using the GPL) I doubt the objection would be valid. In the worst case scenario, probably one of the other authors would be able to replace the contested contribution.
Referring to my first example, what if a large system was built, and in order not to prejudice the author's honor, it was no longer legal to remove his contributions?
That doesn't make sense. Someone (in your case, the state) says that that dead author's work can not be in the code because of moral reasons and, at the same time, says it can't be withdraw for moral reasons? That is to weird to even think about...
El Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:40PM +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y deia:
The GPL does not appear to make any mention of moral rights, so according to the convention (and some law resources I checked) the moral rights stay with the author (even in the case of copyright assignment).
IANAL but I think moral rights are inalienable. You can't sign them away. You can't license them. It's like right to life. You have moral rights whatever you do, you can't waive them. So a copyright license can't do anything about them.
What is to prevent any one contributor to a large GPL project from objecting on moral grounds and thereby halting any distribution/modification? Though our opinions to such objections might vary, I would tend to assume that software is open to such objections.
I guess the requirement to keep a log of who changed what (point 2.a) would greatly limit your ability to claim moral rights. As long as changes to your work are not attributed to you, how can you feel offended?.
I don't think you can object on moral rights about just anything.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:40PM +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
On my recent quest to compare contracts, licenses, and the GPL, I stumbled across something that is disconcerting to me: the moral rights provided by the Berne Convention seem to impose limits on the freedom provided by the GPL.
Adding to the other comments already made:
There have not been cases for "software" based on this moral rights, AFAIK only for "literature".
So most law systems make a distinction between those two. It is true that this is an area where we could continue the lawmaking debate, but it is not relevant much for the current practice. Its danger dimished in comparision to the current threats to Free Software.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:50PM +0200, Robert Michel wrote:
Salve FSF-Europe, I don`t want to bother you with SCO, but BBC is calling for comments, & maybe some of you like to answer to this BBC article:
It is hard to answer an archicle which is unprecise and does not enlighting people that linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
The GNU project and the FSF was always very aware of copyright issues.
Much material for possible answers can be found on: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/sco/sco.html
BBC Technologie Friday, 29 August, 2003, 13:43 GMT 14:43 UK
"Linux is a great operating system, and free software is a vital alternative to the buggy systems sold by Microsoft and other large companies. It is not perfect though, and it is not immune from copyright law just because it is morally superior.