Stallman rants about FreeBIOS

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Bernd Paysan wrote:
[...]
> Some parts of the text above are pretty funny. E.g. that a German court
> ignores the US law environment of the GPL. A German court is only bound to
> German law, that's how it works (everywhere).

Bzzt.

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/foreignlaw.htm

regards,
alexander.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

>
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> [...]
>> Some parts of the text above are pretty funny. E.g. that a German court
>> ignores the US law environment of the GPL. A German court is only bound
>> to German law, that's how it works (everywhere).
>
> Bzzt.
>
> http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/foreignlaw.htm

Yes, contracts are one of the exceptions that allow to use foreign law.
However, that has to be stated explicitely (you can't just choose the law
you prefer after you broke the contract), and to make the GPL a contract,
you need to use German law, anyhow (in the USA, it's a license, not a
contract). Even more, nowhere in the GPL is an explicit statement which law
applies. Therefore, in Germany, German law applies on GPL conflicts. And
the GPL is not that "deeply rooted in US law", Eben Moglen tried to make
sure that it works globally.

Germany restricts the amount of things you can do on a computer program in
UrhG §69. Especially §69c(2) includes "arrangement", i.e. even mere
aggregates are only possible when you have permission of the right owner.
You are allowed to patch programs (§69d(1)) without agreement of the right
owner if there's no special arrangement in the contract. The GPL allows to
patch your program under the well-known conditions, so there *is* a special
arrangement, but you have to accept the GPL to make it a valid contract.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Bernd Paysan wrote:

[... GPL ...]

> in the USA, it's a license, not a contract.

Nobody really knows what it is. There are several theories. IBM, far
example, is on record telling the court that it is a "conscious public
covenant".

As for (some) issues with respect to German law and the GPL, start
here: <http://www.vsi.de/inhalte/aktuell/studie_final_safe.pdf>.

regards,
alexander.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Bernd Paysan wrote:

[... GPL contract ...]

> Even more, nowhere in the GPL is an explicit statement which law
> applies. Therefore, in Germany, German law applies on GPL conflicts.

Wrong again. I've just checked it. Go read Rome Convention.

regards,
alexander.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

>
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
> [... GPL contract ...]
>
>> Even more, nowhere in the GPL is an explicit statement which law
>> applies. Therefore, in Germany, German law applies on GPL conflicts.
>
> Wrong again. I've jvst checked it. Go read Rome Convention.

4(1) "To the extent that the law applicable to the contract has not been
chosen in accordance with Article 3, the contract shall be governed by the
law of the covntry with which it is most closely connected."

What is most closely connected? The netfilter team members that sved are
Germans. The companies they sved sold the stvff in Germany; the companies
have German legal entities. Seems to me that in this case Germany is the
most closely connected covntry. So in general, this can be debated - if an
US developer sves someone in Germany, it might as well be US law that wovld
apply (does the Rome Convention extend to non-EU law?). Bvt here, this is
not the case. Anyway, the Rome Convention is not really an exception to the
general idea that a covrt can ignore foreign law, becavse it's part of the
EU effort to become a real vnion, a state by itself.

I don't think "most closely connected" with the contract means with the
contract's text, it means the contract itself (that is "vse of the
netfilter code" here).

Anyway, I'd welcome other covrts elsewhere rvling on the GPL, bvt the SCO
stvff drags on like slvgs.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If yov want it done right, yov have to do it yovrself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Bernd Paysan wrote:

[... GPL contract ...]

> The netfilter team members that sued are Germans.

And how is one supposed to know that? What if they have other
contributors from the EU apart Germany (rest of the world aside
for a moment)? How is a netfilter licensee supposed to know
which contract law applies (and to which part) in that project?

regards,
alexander.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

>
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
> [... GPL contract ...]
>
>> The netfilter team members that sued are Germans.
>
> And how is one supposed to know that?

less /usr/src/linux/CREDITS

Usually the files in question also contain a copyright notice; there are
even authors that aren't in the CREDITS. Some copyright notices mention a
group (like "netfilter core team"). If you google for that, you find that
the *head* of the netfilter core team is a guy called Harald Welte, who
lives in Berlin. And now guess who sued Sitecom?

> What if they have other
> contributors from the EU apart Germany (rest of the world aside
> for a moment)?

They have other contributors from all over the world. However, the complaint
was not about the code of the other contributors, but about the
contribution from one or two German guys.

> How is a netfilter licensee supposed to know
> which contract law applies (and to which part) in that project?

If in doubt, simply comply to the license ;-). When you use Linux, you know
that you use code from a distributed author collective. Each of them has
the copyright for the portion *he* (or she, there's at least Pauline
Middlelink) submitted. You are not dealing with a company, you get the
rights directly from the authors (the GPL is explicit about that).

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Bernd Paysan wrote:
[...}
> less /usr/src/linux/CREDITS

And there is a list of their employers (actual rights holders,
moral rights aside for a moment)?

[...]
> You are not dealing with a company, you get the
> rights directly from the authors (the GPL is explicit about that).

What?

regards,
alexander.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> [...}
>> less /usr/src/linux/CREDITS
>
> And there is a list of their employers (actual rights holders,
> moral rights aside for a moment)?

I have code in the Linux kernel. You get the right to use those (few)
lines directly from me, and nobody else. Since I wrote those lines
outside of any work I do, no employer "owns" those lines - only I do.

Note that what I do for a living is far away from hacking Linux kernel
code, so no employer, past, present or future can come to me or Linus
and demand that that they own the copyright for those particular
lines.

>> You are not dealing with a company, you get the
>> rights directly from the authors (the GPL is explicit about that).
>
> What?

You get the right from the authors. What's your problem?


Kai
--
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch (More info?)

Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:

> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
>> Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> [...}
>>> less /usr/src/linux/CREDITS
>>
>> And there is a list of their employers (actual rights holders,
>> moral rights aside for a moment)?
>
> I have code in the Linux kernel. You get the right to use those (few)
> lines directly from me, and nobody else. Since I wrote those lines
> outside of any work I do, no employer "owns" those lines - only I do.

The GPL work I do usually is not completely separate from my for-money work.
I use my free software at work, and that includes making changes to the
code. Some of my co-developers do things like that, too. The usual point to
start development is as student, when you aren't employed. I'm telling
during interviews that I have started things like that and I'm going on
with these activities in my spare time, and I'm not going to sign a
contract that doesn't allow that. I refuse to sign contracts that say
(without exception) "all your work is ours".

I.e. we make sure that our employer knows what we do, and knows what the GPL
means (at least in a simplified way - your average employer doesn't want to
know all the gory details). One of the Gforth developers took code into a
very secretive company (working as expensive consultant there), changed it
there, and got a permission to take source code out again - the first one
ever on this company.

BTW: It's quite interesting that usually all creative work is owned by the
author, and has to be explicitely transferred to any third party, with the
exception of software, which is by default owned by the employer.

> Note that what I do for a living is far away from hacking Linux kernel
> code, so no employer, past, present or future can come to me or Linus
> and demand that that they own the copyright for those particular
> lines.
>
>>> You are not dealing with a company, you get the
>>> rights directly from the authors (the GPL is explicit about that).
>>
>> What?
>
> You get the right from the authors. What's your problem?

Maybe he wants to see the paper with

" Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

<signature of Ty wise scholar>, 1 April 1989
Ty wise scholar, President of Vice"

Sometimes, this is necessary. If you employer tells you to write a GPL'd
program, he should write that disclaimer, too.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4bqeg2-r7a.ln1@vimes.paysan.nom...
>
snip
> The GPL work I do usually is not completely separate from my for-money
work.
> I use my free software at work, and that includes making changes to
the
> code. Some of my co-developers do things like that, too. The usual
point to
> start development is as student, when you aren't employed. I'm telling
> during interviews that I have started things like that and I'm going
on
> with these activities in my spare time, and I'm not going to sign a
> contract that doesn't allow that. I refuse to sign contracts that say
> (without exception) "all your work is ours".
>
snip

> BTW: It's quite interesting that usually all creative work is owned by
the
> author, and has to be explicitely transferred to any third party, with
the
> exception of software, which is by default owned by the employer.

That may be true in the EU. It is not in the US. Look up "shop rights"
>
snip
del