Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> writes:
> > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
> > may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
> > specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they
> > do not apply to the situation that is being discussed)
>
> Oh come on, I thought some small country in maybe central Africa,
> but certainly not USA.

US Law is a twisted maze - you wouldn't believe the contradictions that exist 
between different sections of the US Federal Code. (And its worse as you move 
down to the State and the Local levels)

> What you write would essentially mean GPL (and any other such licence)
> is invalid in the USA.

Nope. The GPL is an explicit grant of rights and is fully legal and active as 
it stands.

> The licence is basically a promise not to sue. It wouldn't make any
> sense to promise if you could revoke at will.

If I was to revoke the license on something I held copyright to, I'd be forced 
to make an attempt to contact everyone that may have received a copy of the 
work under that license before I could ever begin filing lawsuits. This 
process will take at least a month - more if the various localities where 
someone might be living has laws about what constitutes an attempt to 
contact. (For instance, here in Pennsylvania an attempt to contact is taking 
out large format classified ad's in every newspaper in the area where the 
person is known to reside - or statewide if the region is not known. The ad's 
have to run for a minimum of one week)

This means that it'd take no less than five weeks - and might take as much as 
six months - before I could begin filing lawsuits. (And even then I'd have to 
have proof that the person in question was violating my copyright at the time 
the lawsuit was filed)

> > Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general)
> > are grants of rights, not a "statements of will".
>
> Right here grants of rights are some sort of statements of will.

Difference in terminology ?

A "Grant of Rights" is where you say 'Normally only I could do this, but I am 
giving you the legal right to do it as well'. A "statement of will" is 'This 
is what I want to have happen, in perpetuity'. In the US, a "statement of 
will" can include or imply a "Grant of Rights" and vice-versa, but they are 
separate entities.

> > (Truthfully, in the US a license
> > should be read with an implicit "All rights reserved")
>
> Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work
> has an implicit "all rights reserved". A licence is just exception.

And? The fact remains that "All Rights Reserved" means "I am reserving all 
rights I do not specifically grant or waive". ie: If a license doesn't 
state 'The licenser hereby waives the right to revoke this license at any 
time' then that right hasn't been lost. (A license acquired through a 
purchase - as might apply to a novel - is a lot different. And contracts are 
a different beast entirely)

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.