GPL license changes over time

[8-bit]

Have you read the latest GPL license?
Does it invalidate the use of an older version?
Were the changes corporate and needed?

Sorry for no links here, but should be easily found for reading.

I bring this up after reading a little about the GPL from a comment on Barry's Blog on releasing EVE.

[abushcrafter]

I have read it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

[Bruce B]

Does it invalidate the use of an older version?

It can't

Were the changes corporate and needed?

Novell Suse cut a deal with Microsoft to the end that if you bought the commercial Suse, with patent protection, you were guaranteed neither enterprise would steal the hubcaps off each others customers cars.

Don't take a literal read of the above. It is an analogy of sorts.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/

The GPL3 is a license developed in response to the aforementioned 'dealings'. It has more teeth to bite back in certain ways.

This is far too legalistic and beyond me, for me to describe in any meaningful detail.

I can say the software author is the copyright holder and can license the work in a variety of ways and the options is his.

Anything we licensed under the GPL2 cannot be modified or changed retroactively.

Something to note, if it hasn't caught your attention. Many projects do not distribute binary compilations.

~~~~

Suppose as an example. (examples sometimes work better)

I distribute and maintain the source code for abcedit. The only thing I'm licensing to you or anyone is source code for abcedit.

You can do with the 'source code' according to the terms of the license.

~~~~

I don't want to spell out reasons why many projects only distribute source code and sometimes link to others who have complied it. I'm clearly not wanting to suggest anything nefarious, that's for sure.

Bruce

Code: Select all

#!/bin/bash
echo "I hope this helps"

~

[Bruce B]

oops!

[8-bit]

I had not taken the time to read through each revision of the GPL.
But I have had some questions answered.
So from what you say, if a software package or source is released with the GPL2 license, the changes in the GPL3 license do not apply to it?

Also, and this is a good one.
Lets use me as an example.
A while back, I wrote a GUI for a copyrighted program called ufiformat.
I used a template from another forum member to start my work and kept testing it till I was reasonably sure it was ready for release.
I did not claim any copyright to it, and added a comment in the script that I made it available to anyone having a use for it and also permission to modify it.
So let us say you look and see my GUI program is not copyrighted.
Could you get a copyright on it and then sue for damages or reimbursement?
Or would my statement in the script be ok?
I also have most of the revisions I made to it stored on my hard drive as proof I did not just insert my name.
Oh hell, my name is not even mentioned anywhere.

[Bruce B]

8-bit here is an interesting read:

http://www.busybox.net/license.html

~

[Bruce B]

I had not taken the time to read through each revision of the GPL.
But I have had some questions answered.
So from what you say, if a software package or source is released with the GPL2 license, the changes in the GPL3 license do not apply to it?

True

Also, and this is a good one. Lets use me as an example.

A while back, I wrote a GUI for a copyrighted program called ufiformat.

I used a template from another forum member to start my work and kept testing it till I was reasonably sure it was ready for release.

I did not claim any copyright to it, and added a comment in the script that I made it available to anyone having a use for it and also permission to modify it.

You can't actually grant permission if you don't own the work. But, you do own rights to it by virtue of creating the copyrightable elements of the work.

So let us say you look and see my GUI program is not copyrighted.

It is copyrighted and the rights belong to you. It doesn't become copyrighted when you register it, it merely becomes registered and gives you potentially a few legal benefits. I suspect the vast majority of work is not registered because it is not a necessary condition in so many cases.

For example, I have some excellent photographs.

I sign a contract with you that says you can make one-hundred copies. That gives you the right to make up to one-hundred copies and not one more.

I sign a paper transferring ownership and copy rights of my photograph to you. I relinquish my rights to even publish one. You have all rights.

We can do all this and never register the photograph. The ownership and associated rights are inherent.

Could you get a copyright on it and then sue for damages or reimbursement?

If I understand you right, I could get counter-sued for fraud.

Or would my statement in the script be ok?

If you own it, I don't know who could have legal interest or standing to tell you what you can or can't do with your intellectual property in this context.

I also have most of the revisions I made to it stored on my hard drive as proof I did not just insert my name.
Oh hell, my name is not even mentioned anywhere.

Suppose you didn't. People can't demand proof you own it. If someone else believes they own it, they might sue you. They would need to back up their ownership claim and you yours. In simple terms anyway, law can be very complex as you know.

And I'm not an attorney and this is only a forum post discussing thoughts and ideas.

~~~

Some additional thoughts.

I write a script to share with others on the forum. Maybe I spend two hours on it. Then I post it without attribution or license.

Things like this are very common.

I think in the manner it is presented can easily imply I want you to use and copy it.

If this permission was implied, I probably lost standing to sue over my own work. A fundamental reason why is - I contributed to and encouraged the infringement of my software.

Bruce

~