GNU GPL can't force payment?

[Cinly Ooi]

Dear DES et al,

2010/12/15 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no>

> Cinly Ooi <cooi at theiet.org> writes:
> > "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <des at des.no> writes:
> > > [quoting http://compbio.cs.huji.ac.il/scoregenes/]
> > > "The package is available here for academic research only under the
> > > LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"
> > Needless to say they violated FSF's copyright on GPL and LGPL.
>
> No, they didn't.  The LGPL says:
>
>           GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>                      Version 2.1, February 1999
>
>  Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>     59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
>  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>
> They did not alter the license, nor did they violate it.  They are not
> recipients of the software; they are its authors, and have the right to
> distribute it (or not) to whomever they like under whatever terms they
> like.
>
>
Sorry, I should had been more precise. When I said violating FSF's
copyright, I meant FSF's copyright on the text of GPL, not the source code.
My presumption is the same as yours, i.e., the author of the software own
the source code completely and there is no contamination of copyright as a
result of them using other people's GPL software. In the latter, their
restriction is illegal and meaningless.

After reading your email, I was not sure. They did not alter the license, at
least when you mean changing the text. But they are imposing a restriction
(research community only) which is a violation of the spirit of the license.



> I am unsure of the practical effect of this contradiction.  It depends
> on the precise interpretation of the sentence I quoted.  If it is
> interpreted as "we distribute the software under the terms of the LGPL
> with the additional restriction that it may only be used for academic
> purposes", I suspect that the net result is to invalidate the entire
> license, so that those who obtain a copy of ScoreGenes directly from the
> authors by legitimate means have the basic rights granted by copyright
> regulations (i.e. the right to use the software and possibly also create
> backup copies), but no more.  If, on the other hand, it is interpreted
> as "we distribute the software to academics under the LGPL", there is
> nothing to prevent those first-tier recipients from redistributing it
> indiscriminately.
>
>
Being in the academic sphere on a supporting role, I can tell you they meant
the first interpretation. "we distribute the software under the terms of the
LGPL
with the additional restriction that it may only be used for academic
purposes".

Except in CompSci and Engineering department, most people still don't really
understand GPL or LGPL.

Research grants required them to be share the fruit of research. Most of the
time it is interpreted as source code must be made available to other
researchers. The only questions remaining is 'on what terms'. It used to be,
and is still is, mainly a gentleman agreement that everything is for
non-commercial research only. They want to preserve commercialization for
themselves.

Then, GPL appears on the radar. Most of them like GPL's 'you must provide
all source code' clause. The more intelligent one find LGPL's 'you must
provide all modification to the original source code only' acceptable. That
is because in practice, that removes the commercialization opportunity for
others. However, they are wary that putting the software on GPL/LGPL means
smart business people might be able to commercialize their work without
rewarding them, so they want to exclude them. That is where the 'research
community' clause comes in.

The 'research community only' clause is generally treated as a gentleman
agreement. I don't think anyone has the appetite to test it in a law court.
The closest analogy is the 'please do not distribute' plea to customers for
the net probe you mentioned earlier. Ethically we honour it, but legally
speaking it is a very muddy field.


> In my experience, the scientific community in general has a very tenuous
> grasp of copyright law and software or content licensing, which is
> ironic considering that their livelihood rests entirely on IP.
>
>
I agree with you and had been constantly reminding my colleagues about their
obligation to respect others' IP if they want theirs respected. I wanted to
put something like this in my original email, but I know my English is as
good as you so I was worry I did not put down in words what I intended to
say. Part of my work, as I see it, is to keep my department on the straight
and narrow of the IP laws.

Best Regards,
Cinly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20101215/18703b2e/attachment.html>