[License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive License (UPL)

Sat Sep 13 22:32:01 UTC 2014

John Cowan on Friday, September 12, 2014:

> Here's the whole hypo: ....

John, let's play hypos again! I feel somewhat like a hobbit engaging in
riddles with you, but I risk little by this online search for truth:

1) Change your hypo and assume that Bob issues code under the GPL,
definitely not a "permissive license" by your meaning.

2) through 5) identical. Same result?

Assume also the following details as sub-riddles:

6) Alice's original proprietary program was written and Alice's copyright
registered on it the year Linus Torvalds was born. Alice is replacing parts
of that old proprietary anchor-ware with Bob's zipped-in program.
Fortunately for Alice, she didn't need to change one bit of her old software
or Bob's new software to make this improvement; it is as close to a plug-in
as technology allows. Same result or must Alice disclose more of her source
code or apply the GPL to her old proprietary code? 

7) Suppose Alice used special programming methods in her proprietary code to
make it run only with the copy of Bob's software whose source code she has
published. Any other version of Bob's software causes Alice's program to
fail. Must she disclose her special programming methods that she calls her
"DMCA shield"? Can Bob or Charlie just discover them for themselves by
well-known reverse engineering techniques? Is there a DMCA expert in the
house?

8) Assume for another riddle how the situation would change if Alice
*didn't* provide Charlie with a copy of Bob's GPL license and source code
along with her proprietary software. And then, Charlie copied and
distributed his proprietary version also without notices and copies of Bob's
GPL license and source code. Obviously Bob has his own copyright
infringement claims against both Alice and Charlie, but does Bob's GPL
license protect any downstream third party beneficiaries of his code?

/Larry

P.S. What better to do on a weekend than entertain your friends with riddles
that may actually matter to them in their weekday jobs.

P.P.S. I'm also going to try to get answers to these riddles from one or
more of our speakers at this year's PLI Open Source and Free Software 2014
program in San Francisco and on the web on December 10, 2014. A formal
annoucement with the speaker list will be posted here soon, but you speakers
know who you are so be prepared....

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:53 PM
To: 'License submissions for OSI review'
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: [License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive
License (UPL)

John, my responses are inline. This has become a fun hypothetical for a
Friday afternoon.

/Larry

-----Original Message-----

From: John Cowan [ <mailto:cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
mailto:cowan at mercury.ccil.org]

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:34 PM

To: Lawrence Rosen

Cc: 'License submissions for OSI review'

Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Approval of Universal Permissive
License (UPL)

Lawrence Rosen scripsit:

> And when her system administrator reports her to the FOSS police, or 

> more likely when Ameriprise sues her for some unrelated reason, we'll 

> see and hear about it. What then?

We seem to be on different tracks.  Here's the whole hypo:

1) Bob issues code under a permissive license.

[<LER>] Bless him.

2) Alice takes that code and compiles it into her proprietary software, as
she is well entitled to do, and distributes the binary version to Charlie
and others.

[<LER>] She better include appropriate notices and copies of the license and
source code of Bob's software if Bob's license requires it. Charlie now
knows (or is presumed to know) that he's entitled to Bob's code.

3) Charlie extracts the binary bits corresponding to Bob's source code and
reuses them in *his* proprietary software.  Why he doesn't go straight to
Bob's source, I don't know -- Charlies are odd creatures.

Perhaps he lives on Debian Island, where there is no Internet but CD-ROMs
can be bought and sold via the annual ship.

[<LER>] I don't understand Charlie's motivation either. Perhaps he didn't
realize that Alice has a Help-About that explains exactly where to find all
of Bob's source code without prying into her proprietary stuff. Furthermore,
Charlie's lawyer probably didn't tell him that by doing so he is violating
the DMCA and trade secret laws, and probably is in breach of the proprietary
contract he negotiated with Alice.

4) Alice sues Charlie for infringement of parts of her copyrighted software.

[<LER>] I'm not sure if infringement is the proper cause of action, but she
surely has some reason to complain. Charlie's a jerk!

5) Charlie's defense is that Alice's compiled code is just Bob's source code
in a different medium, and he relies on Bob's license.

[<LER>] Go to hell, Charlie. Go to SourceForge like Alice did and just as
Alice's Help-About said you could.

Best regards,

/Larry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140913/6ad4961d/attachment.html>