Alex Hudson wrote:
No, it's definitely not a contract. Copyright gives you a certain group of rights. The GPL is basically waiving some of those rights (granting the rights to the user) under certain conditions. A contract is a two-way thing, a licence is a one-way thing (i.e., a grant from licensor to licensee).
I found a few references indicating that a license is a form of a contract:
Check definition "license": http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Copyright_Guide/definiti...
And under here, it gives a few examples of how the "use rights" can be defined as a contract: http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Digital_Content/Capture_Collections/legal_issu...
Further government information likes to use the terms "agreement" as well, but in the Contract Law it uses the term "agreement" to define a contract. At best, the distrinction between a Copyright License and a Contract in Canada is unclear, leaning towards treating the license as a contract.
But the GPL is not a one-way grant, because it puts additional onuses on you, should you wish to distribute it. Most licenses are also two-way: I grant you permission to copy, and you give me money. If you have truly created a condition free grant, that is still similar to a Deed Contract in Canada (though those have to be done "under seal").
Ah, assignment of copyright is something completely different. In the above, we're not assigning the copyright - we're licensing it. We still
Sorry, slip of the hands, I meant licensing, not assignment, in many countries you aren't even allowed to assign your copyright (like in Germany -- but don't tell GEMA that, useless bastards).
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 18:13, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
But the GPL is not a one-way grant, because it puts additional onuses on you, should you wish to distribute it.
Wrong. Default copyright is no copy. GPL applies it's judo trick and you are allowed to copy as long as you duplicate your rights. It is granting you more rights that Copyright does.
You are required to accept most (if not all) non-free licenses because they restrict your rights further than copyright does.
Rui
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 18:13, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
I found a few references indicating that a license is a form of a contract:
This is guidance issued to museums. And it doesn't support your position very well, apart from the fact the language is rather loose.
Further government information likes to use the terms "agreement" as well, but in the Contract Law it uses the term "agreement" to define a contract. At best, the distrinction between a Copyright License and a Contract in Canada is unclear, leaning towards treating the license as a contract.
You'll find that Canadian law isn't unclear, but that there is no such thing per se. For example, you stated that consideration was a necessary part of a contract: that's not the case; Quebec's civil code doesn't require it, although the rest of Canada does. Quebec is influenced by French law rather than English law, hence the dichotomy. It's not really correct to talk about Canadian law as a whole, therefore.
That said, I still don't see anything which supports your position, Canadian or otherwise. You might find it interesting to read Eben Moglen's discussion of GPL enforcement:
http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2001091801320OPLL
"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits."
(Gratuitous misuse of the neuter pronoun... ;)
But the GPL is not a one-way grant, because it puts additional onuses on you, should you wish to distribute it.
That's not the case. It's a limited grant. Copyright doesn't say "You can give people the right to copy or not; there is no middle way" - you can cede your rights in any way you please. Yes, it does place restrictions, but that's just the scope of the grant of license. If you're outside of that scope, then the license doesn't apply and you don't have the right to distribute (probably). It's purely one-way.
Ah, assignment of copyright is something completely different. In the above, we're not assigning the copyright - we're licensing it. We still
Sorry, slip of the hands, I meant licensing, not assignment, in many countries you aren't even allowed to assign your copyright (like in Germany -- but don't tell GEMA that, useless bastards).
Influence of continental Europe again ;)
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
This is guidance issued to museums. And it doesn't support your position very well, apart from the fact the language is rather loose.
They seem to consider works of art the same way as software, but I digress. I'm willing to accept that copyright permissions can be granted via licenses, despite most of such grants occuring within the context of a contract.
My position about the GPL is still reserved, I will evaluate the points of it comparing it to the Canadian contract law and the Rome/Berne laws and see if it truly qualifies as a license.
part of a contract: that's not the case; Quebec's civil code doesn't require it, although the rest of Canada does. Quebec is influenced by
I understand Quebec's situation, they are always a special case in Canada and I generally excluded them. (Though a Deed in the rest of Canada always does not require mutual consideration).
Note, of interest to the SCO thing, this line I got from the Canada copyright act:
"(3) For the purposes of this Act, other than in respect of infringement of copyright, a work or other subject-matter is not deemed to be published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication if that act is done without the consent of the owner of the copyright."
Can a company claim that it didn't give itself permission to distribute?