Automatic GPL termination

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/12/07, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
> > On 9/12/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That is what I thought at first until I noticed that Evers is allowed to do
> > > this *without* modifying code.
>
> Distinguish between "code" and "Code", which is a name for Tinker's whole
> work *including* its license.  The code is the same, but Code has been
> changed.

How fascinating.

>
> > Even in the case of modified code, Evers copyright (if any) doesn't
> > cover remaining protected elements from Tinker's work and Evers just
> > can't change Tinker's licensing terms other than by sublicensing
> > Tinker's work.
>
> He can if Tinker's license says he can, which it does.

Think BSD, Mr. Cowan.

"Redistributions of source code must retain ... this list of conditions".

http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_of_Open_Source_070112lowres.pdf

"What is the legal effect of being required to retain "this list of
conditions". Are they just there for show? Do they have some other
effect? In determining this, a court will look to the objective
meaning of the clause and, potentially, the objective intention of the
original licensor. In this case, the actual subjective intention of
the party granting the license (and what they thought the words meant)
is irrelevant.8 What the court is looking to determine is what the
reasonable person (ie an idealized and dispassionate citizen who is
called on to assess the scope of the license) would make of the
words.9

Consider first the warranty disclaimer. If there is a requirement to
"retain" a copy of the warranty disclaimer in a redistribution, is a
court likely to say the warranty disclaimer is intended to be
effective or not? For example, could the disclaimer be retained but
framed by a redistributor in such a way that the disclaimer had no
legal force?10 It is likely that the reasonable person would read the
license and think that the licensor intended that the warranty
disclaimer was to be retained without qualification. A similar
argument could be made about clause 5 (which prohibits endorsements).

On this analysis, the warranty disclaimer travels with the
distribution and the redistributor has no ability to qualify it. The
question then becomes what about the other clauses? What about clause
2 which permits "redistribution and use" of the source form? If, in
the case of the warranty disclaimer, the objective intention of the
requirement to "retain" or "reproduce" the warranty disclaimer is that
the warranty disclaimer cannot, by the manner of its retention, be
limited in its application or scope. Why should the same reasoning not
apply to the terms in the "list of conditions"? Moreover, if the
disclaimer and endorsement prohibition are operative as conditions,
what basis can there be for arguing that the other clauses are not?

If the other license terms are operative, then the combined effect of
clauses 2 and 3 is that redistribution of the source form must occur
on the terms of the NBSDL.

[...]

REPRODUCTION IN SOURCE FORM WITH MODIFICATION..."

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                        -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor