A package I'm reviewing includes the following in a "docs/license" file (I have wrapped the text which was originally on two lines):
========= The !IguanaWorks USB Infrared Transceiver firmware and drivers are provided under the [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html Gnu Public License (GPL), version 2]. You are free to use the firmware and driver software freely within the constraints of the license. Any changes submitted back to !IguanaWorks become the property of !IguanaWorks and are then licensed to others under the GPL version 2. '''If you submit changes to us, you are giving !IguanaWorks the copyright on those changes.'''
If you are interested in commerical use of our hardware or software, please contact us for alternative licensing. =========
I have a few questions regarding this:
Is it remotely valid for them to claim copyright without any formal copyright assignment documents being exchanged? I suppose this depends on what "submit" means, but it sure sounds as if they claim that you hand over your copyright just by being friendly and sending a bugfix to them.
Does this in any way impact the suitability of this package for Fedora?
The firmware mentioned is given in the form of hex code, which doesn't seem to be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I know the issue of GPL'd binary-only stuff must have come up before; is there a summary of the issue anywhere I can look at?
Thanks,
- J<
On 01/21/2011 09:39 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Is it remotely valid for them to claim copyright without any formal copyright assignment documents being exchanged? I suppose this depends on what "submit" means, but it sure sounds as if they claim that you hand over your copyright just by being friendly and sending a bugfix to them.
Is it remotely valid? Man, I don't know. If I had to wager, I'd say that if you clearly declare your copyright on any contribution and specifically do not disclaim it, it would trump such a "declaration", but who knows what a judge would think.
Does this in any way impact the suitability of this package for Fedora?
As distasteful as it is, I don't think so. They do not require that you send them anything, they just say that if you do, you're also giving them copyright. I would much prefer to see them leave this whole copyright assignment concept out of the source licensing.
I'm going to run this one past RH Legal just to be sure.
The firmware mentioned is given in the form of hex code, which doesn't seem to be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I know the issue of GPL'd binary-only stuff must have come up before; is there a summary of the issue anywhere I can look at?
I'm not sure that it really has come up before. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that firmware hex code is not "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", but I'm also not sure whether the copyright holder (the licensor) or the licensee is the one who determines what is preferred.
To put it bluntly, you might have to sue them to get the raw firmware source.
As always, IANAL, this is not legal advice.
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:49, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure that it really has come up before. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that firmware hex code is not "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", but I'm also not sure whether the copyright holder (the licensor) or the licensee is the one who determines what is preferred.
To put it bluntly, you might have to sue them to get the raw firmware source.
A lot of firmware I dealt with back in the day ONLY had hex code as the source. I doubt that is the case these days but it was how the guys liked to twiddle the bits as raw as they could.
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 12:49 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 01/21/2011 09:39 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
The firmware mentioned is given in the form of hex code, which doesn't seem to be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I know the issue of GPL'd binary-only stuff must have come up before; is there a summary of the issue anywhere I can look at?
[...]
To put it bluntly, you might have to sue them to get the raw firmware source.
AIUI, purporting to release a work under the GPL does not oblige the licensor to provide the source. If they don't, it just makes the license unusable because redistributors cannot meet their obligation to provide source, unless we assume the licensor meant to grant a license that is a modified version of the GPL. However, if the company incorporated someone else's GPL content, that party could sue the company for failing to provide source for the derivative work. Requiring a copyright transfer (or even just a non-copyleft license) on all contributions neatly avoids that possibility.
(Caveat, I could be completely wrong...)
On 01/28/2011 09:11 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
AIUI, purporting to release a work under the GPL does not oblige the licensor to provide the source.
I disagree, especially given that the licensor is claiming to be the sole copyright holder and they are distributing the work.
GPLv2 ties the right to copy/distribute the Program with the requirement that the distributor either distribute it with the source code (3a) or a written offer for how to get the source code (3b) (there is a 3c here, but it is less relevant here).
So, distributing (aka, "releasing a work") under the GPL absolutely obliges the licensor to provide the source to recipients of the Program (usually the binary).
The gray area here is whether "the source" for GPL licensed hex firmware is the hex dump or the asm which is then compiled into the hex dump. I feel strongly that the hex dump is the "Program", and the asm code is "the source", and the GPL reinforces that:
(from v2):
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Unless you can prove to me that the upstream vendors are making the majority of the modifications to their firmware with a hex editor, then it is not the "preferred form of the work".
But, this is just my opinion, and a judge might disagree with me.
Also, IANAL. :)
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 01/28/2011 09:11 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
AIUI, purporting to release a work under the GPL does not oblige the licensor to provide the source.
I disagree, especially given that the licensor is claiming to be the sole copyright holder and they are distributing the work.
GPLv2 ties the right to copy/distribute the Program with the requirement that the distributor either distribute it with the source code (3a) or a written offer for how to get the source code (3b) (there is a 3c here, but it is less relevant here).
So, distributing (aka, "releasing a work") under the GPL absolutely obliges the licensor to provide the source to recipients of the Program (usually the binary).
With all due respect, I don't think so... Assuming the licensor is the sole copyright holder as they say, they have the exclusive right of distribution under copyright law. They don't need a license to distribute the work however they please. They are not infringing anyone else's rights, so no one would have any cause to sue them.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Matt McCutchen matt@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 01/28/2011 09:11 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
AIUI, purporting to release a work under the GPL does not oblige the licensor to provide the source.
I disagree, especially given that the licensor is claiming to be the sole copyright holder and they are distributing the work.
GPLv2 ties the right to copy/distribute the Program with the requirement that the distributor either distribute it with the source code (3a) or a written offer for how to get the source code (3b) (there is a 3c here, but it is less relevant here).
So, distributing (aka, "releasing a work") under the GPL absolutely obliges the licensor to provide the source to recipients of the Program (usually the binary).
With all due respect, I don't think so... Assuming the licensor is the sole copyright holder as they say, they have the exclusive right of distribution under copyright law. They don't need a license to distribute the work however they please. They are not infringing anyone else's rights, so no one would have any cause to sue them.
They might have 'cause' but they likely wouldn't have standing, at least for a copyright case. One might make the case that's the license is truly a contract, and that by not living up to the terms of the contract they could be sued (e.g. a simple tort case) however the thing that I repeatedly here is 'what is the consideration which is given to consummate the contract'?, and since libre software is often given away gratis, many argue there is no consideration, and that makes pressing a case more difficult.
Of course IANAL.
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 21:08 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Matt McCutchen matt@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
With all due respect, I don't think so... Assuming the licensor is the sole copyright holder as they say, they have the exclusive right of distribution under copyright law. They don't need a license to distribute the work however they please. They are not infringing anyone else's rights, so no one would have any cause to sue them.
They might have 'cause' but they likely wouldn't have standing, at least for a copyright case. One might make the case that's the license is truly a contract, and that by not living up to the terms of the contract they could be sued (e.g. a simple tort case)
Even so, there is nothing in the "contract" that obliges the licensor to provide the source. It is all about what the licensee must do if he/she distributes or modifies the work. One could argue that it is implied that the licensor agrees to provide the source because otherwise the licensee's right to distribute is impossible to exercise; I don't buy that, but I may be wrong.
On 01/29/2011 07:14 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 21:08 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Matt McCutchen matt@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
With all due respect, I don't think so... Assuming the licensor is the sole copyright holder as they say, they have the exclusive right of distribution under copyright law. They don't need a license to distribute the work however they please. They are not infringing anyone else's rights, so no one would have any cause to sue them.
They might have 'cause' but they likely wouldn't have standing, at least for a copyright case. One might make the case that's the license is truly a contract, and that by not living up to the terms of the contract they could be sued (e.g. a simple tort case)
Even so, there is nothing in the "contract" that obliges the licensor to provide the source. It is all about what the licensee must do if he/she distributes or modifies the work. One could argue that it is implied that the licensor agrees to provide the source because otherwise the licensee's right to distribute is impossible to exercise; I don't buy that, but I may be wrong.
I suspect that you are wrong, given that the GPL has repeatedly held up in various courts (although, not yet in the US).
Also, the success rate for people getting source code from major corporations in GPL compliance situations is rather high, and if your interpretation was valid, I would suspect that they would not comply.
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 10:04 -0700, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 01/29/2011 07:14 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 21:08 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Matt McCutchen matt@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
With all due respect, I don't think so... Assuming the licensor is the sole copyright holder as they say, they have the exclusive right of distribution under copyright law. They don't need a license to distribute the work however they please. They are not infringing anyone else's rights, so no one would have any cause to sue them.
They might have 'cause' but they likely wouldn't have standing, at least for a copyright case. One might make the case that's the license is truly a contract, and that by not living up to the terms of the contract they could be sued (e.g. a simple tort case)
Even so, there is nothing in the "contract" that obliges the licensor to provide the source. It is all about what the licensee must do if he/she distributes or modifies the work. One could argue that it is implied that the licensor agrees to provide the source because otherwise the licensee's right to distribute is impossible to exercise; I don't buy that, but I may be wrong.
I suspect that you are wrong, given that the GPL has repeatedly held up in various courts (although, not yet in the US).
Also, the success rate for people getting source code from major corporations in GPL compliance situations is rather high, and if your interpretation was valid, I would suspect that they would not comply.
I suspect that in the cases you are talking about, there is a key difference: the work the company is distributing is a derivative work of a GPL work copyrighted by another party, so that party can sue the company for copyright infringement. But in the original case in this thread, IguanaWorks is (we think) the sole copyright holder of the work it is distributing.
On 01/30/2011 09:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
I suspect that in the cases you are talking about, there is a key difference: the work the company is distributing is a derivative work of a GPL work copyrighted by another party, so that party can sue the company for copyright infringement. But in the original case in this thread, IguanaWorks is (we think) the sole copyright holder of the work it is distributing.
There is a difference in those two cases, as it is simpler for a copyright holder to go after an infringer, but I suspect from a contract perspective, the claim is equally valid.
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:03 -0700, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 01/30/2011 09:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
I suspect that in the cases you are talking about, there is a key difference: the work the company is distributing is a derivative work of a GPL work copyrighted by another party, so that party can sue the company for copyright infringement. But in the original case in this thread, IguanaWorks is (we think) the sole copyright holder of the work it is distributing.
There is a difference in those two cases, as it is simpler for a copyright holder to go after an infringer, but I suspect from a contract perspective, the claim is equally valid.
It turns out this issue is covered in the FSF's GPL FAQ. They say that the copyright holder's actions never "violate" the GPL, at least with respect to distribution and modification. This would appear consistent with my interpretation that the distribution and modification terms are conditions of the copyright license offered to licensees, and not licensor commitments.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
Note that there may be other terms that are licensor commitments, such as the patent license in GPLv3 section 11 (the licensor commits not to enforce patents under certain conditions).
On 01/31/2011 11:23 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
hey say that the copyright holder's actions never "violate" the GPL, at least with respect to distribution and modification. This would appear consistent with my interpretation that the distribution and modification terms are conditions of the copyright license offered to licensees, and not licensor commitments.
Except that it is logically invalid. If the copyright holder is not promising via the GPL to provide the source to those who are using the Program under the terms, how are those parties expected to pass the source along to anyone else?
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:44 -0700, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 01/31/2011 11:23 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
hey say that the copyright holder's actions never "violate" the GPL, at least with respect to distribution and modification. This would appear consistent with my interpretation that the distribution and modification terms are conditions of the copyright license offered to licensees, and not licensor commitments.
Except that it is logically invalid. If the copyright holder is not promising via the GPL to provide the source to those who are using the Program under the terms, how are those parties expected to pass the source along to anyone else?
That's too bad for them. Since they cannot meet the conditions of the distribution license, they cannot legally distribute the software at all: the license is unusable. This is just a special case of the principle stated in GPLv2 section 7.
So it is possible to have a work that is licensed under the GPL and yet cannot be distributed, but this is just a technicality. One would hope that references to "releasing a work under GPLvX" in contracts and the like would be interpreted to entail releasing the source, according to the parties' intent.
On 01/21/2011 09:39 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Does this in any way impact the suitability of this package for Fedora?
Coming back to this specific question, after consulting with RH Legal and the FSF, the FSF reached out to IguanaWorks and had them reword their license to clearly separate their contribution policy from their copyright license.
See: http://iguanaworks.net/projects/IguanaIR/wiki/license
With that change, it is clearly GPLv2, and acceptable for Fedora.
(Also, FWIW, there was consensus that their automatic copyright assignment logic was invalid, but that is irrelevant to the acceptability of the software license.)
~tom
== Fedora Project
-
David Nalley -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Matt McCutchen -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tom Callaway