Mixing
Clarification of gpl v3 section 9
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question occurred to me as a result of Stephen Kitt's comment below my recent post, How to properly display the Copyright information in the User Interface or product documentation?
His comment:
“By using gifscrollâ€Â...
That paragraph goes against the GPL, specifically, section 9 of GPL v3
refers to part of the gpl-related comment block in my code reading:
* By using gifscroll, you warrant that you have read, understood
* and agreed to these terms and conditions, and that you possess the legal
* right and ability to enter into this agreement and to use gifscroll
* in accordance with it.
And after checking out section 9,
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.
However, nothing other than this License grants you permission
to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe
copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying
or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of
this License to do so.
I'd agree with Stephen's comment. But the gist of that section sounds (to me, at least) like some Alice-in-Wonderland logic...
It's a license that grants you some rights (in this case "to receive or run a copy of the program") even if you don't accept the license. But if you don't accept the license in the first place, you wouldn't be appealing to the rights and permissions it does or doesn't grant you. You certainly can't be saying, in the same breath, that both (a)I don't accept this license, and (b)this license grants me permission to...
So what the heck is the purpose of this "even if you don't accept" clause in section 9? If you don't accept the license, then you don't care what it says, period. They're nevertheless presumably trying to accomplish something or other with that section 9. But what, exactly??? And then I'd think (or hope) they could accomplish their intended purpose in a more sensible-sounding way.
gpl-3
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question occurred to me as a result of Stephen Kitt's comment below my recent post, How to properly display the Copyright information in the User Interface or product documentation?
His comment:
“By using gifscrollâ€Â...
That paragraph goes against the GPL, specifically, section 9 of GPL v3
refers to part of the gpl-related comment block in my code reading:
* By using gifscroll, you warrant that you have read, understood
* and agreed to these terms and conditions, and that you possess the legal
* right and ability to enter into this agreement and to use gifscroll
* in accordance with it.
And after checking out section 9,
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.
However, nothing other than this License grants you permission
to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe
copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying
or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of
this License to do so.
I'd agree with Stephen's comment. But the gist of that section sounds (to me, at least) like some Alice-in-Wonderland logic...
It's a license that grants you some rights (in this case "to receive or run a copy of the program") even if you don't accept the license. But if you don't accept the license in the first place, you wouldn't be appealing to the rights and permissions it does or doesn't grant you. You certainly can't be saying, in the same breath, that both (a)I don't accept this license, and (b)this license grants me permission to...
So what the heck is the purpose of this "even if you don't accept" clause in section 9? If you don't accept the license, then you don't care what it says, period. They're nevertheless presumably trying to accomplish something or other with that section 9. But what, exactly??? And then I'd think (or hope) they could accomplish their intended purpose in a more sensible-sounding way.
gpl-3
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question occurred to me as a result of Stephen Kitt's comment below my recent post, How to properly display the Copyright information in the User Interface or product documentation?
His comment:
“By using gifscrollâ€Â...
That paragraph goes against the GPL, specifically, section 9 of GPL v3
refers to part of the gpl-related comment block in my code reading:
* By using gifscroll, you warrant that you have read, understood
* and agreed to these terms and conditions, and that you possess the legal
* right and ability to enter into this agreement and to use gifscroll
* in accordance with it.
And after checking out section 9,
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.
However, nothing other than this License grants you permission
to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe
copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying
or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of
this License to do so.
I'd agree with Stephen's comment. But the gist of that section sounds (to me, at least) like some Alice-in-Wonderland logic...
It's a license that grants you some rights (in this case "to receive or run a copy of the program") even if you don't accept the license. But if you don't accept the license in the first place, you wouldn't be appealing to the rights and permissions it does or doesn't grant you. You certainly can't be saying, in the same breath, that both (a)I don't accept this license, and (b)this license grants me permission to...
So what the heck is the purpose of this "even if you don't accept" clause in section 9? If you don't accept the license, then you don't care what it says, period. They're nevertheless presumably trying to accomplish something or other with that section 9. But what, exactly??? And then I'd think (or hope) they could accomplish their intended purpose in a more sensible-sounding way.
gpl-3
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
This question occurred to me as a result of Stephen Kitt's comment below my recent post, How to properly display the Copyright information in the User Interface or product documentation?
His comment:
“By using gifscrollâ€Â...
That paragraph goes against the GPL, specifically, section 9 of GPL v3
refers to part of the gpl-related comment block in my code reading:
* By using gifscroll, you warrant that you have read, understood
* and agreed to these terms and conditions, and that you possess the legal
* right and ability to enter into this agreement and to use gifscroll
* in accordance with it.
And after checking out section 9,
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.
However, nothing other than this License grants you permission
to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe
copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying
or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of
this License to do so.
I'd agree with Stephen's comment. But the gist of that section sounds (to me, at least) like some Alice-in-Wonderland logic...
It's a license that grants you some rights (in this case "to receive or run a copy of the program") even if you don't accept the license. But if you don't accept the license in the first place, you wouldn't be appealing to the rights and permissions it does or doesn't grant you. You certainly can't be saying, in the same breath, that both (a)I don't accept this license, and (b)this license grants me permission to...
So what the heck is the purpose of this "even if you don't accept" clause in section 9? If you don't accept the license, then you don't care what it says, period. They're nevertheless presumably trying to accomplish something or other with that section 9. But what, exactly??? And then I'd think (or hope) they could accomplish their intended purpose in a more sensible-sounding way.
gpl-3
gpl-3
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
edited 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
3,163922
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
asked 2 hours ago
John Forkosh
69129
69129
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Quoting the GPL FAQ:
You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.
Assuming you obtained a piece of GPL-licensed software appropriately (which means that whoever conveyed it to you accepted the license), you don’t need to accept the license merely to use the software. The onus is on distributors because they need additional rights to be allowed to redistribute the software (rights which are provided by the GPL). Copyright law doesn’t deny users the right to use copyrighted works; it restricts their rights to redistribute them, modify them, perform them etc.
The rights “to receive or run a copy of the program†are obtained as a result of the distributor’s acceptance of the license, that’s all that’s needed. The recipient doesn’t need to accept any license.
This is similar to, e.g., going shopping: the vast majority of goods you can buy (or be given, etc.) don’t require anything additional for you to be allowed to use them.
The first paragraph of the answer I’m quoting from is very lenient for authors and users:
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
So effectively your clause isn’t forbidden by the GPL, because it’s ineffective for users: users’ obligations aren’t changed by either accepting the license or not. Accepting the license merely to use the software entails no obligations for users; refusing the license merely to use the software doesn’t deny anything to users.
The GPL’s preamble gives additional context:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
“share and changeâ€Â, not “useâ€Â.
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
“show themâ€Â, not “require them to accept themâ€Â. The users of GPL software have the same basic rights as any software user, i.e. the right to use the software; but they also have additional rights, provided by the GPL, and it’s useful that they are made aware of them — but they don’t have to take advantage of those additional rights, and as a result they don’t have to accept the GPL.
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
1
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Quoting the GPL FAQ:
You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.
Assuming you obtained a piece of GPL-licensed software appropriately (which means that whoever conveyed it to you accepted the license), you don’t need to accept the license merely to use the software. The onus is on distributors because they need additional rights to be allowed to redistribute the software (rights which are provided by the GPL). Copyright law doesn’t deny users the right to use copyrighted works; it restricts their rights to redistribute them, modify them, perform them etc.
The rights “to receive or run a copy of the program†are obtained as a result of the distributor’s acceptance of the license, that’s all that’s needed. The recipient doesn’t need to accept any license.
This is similar to, e.g., going shopping: the vast majority of goods you can buy (or be given, etc.) don’t require anything additional for you to be allowed to use them.
The first paragraph of the answer I’m quoting from is very lenient for authors and users:
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
So effectively your clause isn’t forbidden by the GPL, because it’s ineffective for users: users’ obligations aren’t changed by either accepting the license or not. Accepting the license merely to use the software entails no obligations for users; refusing the license merely to use the software doesn’t deny anything to users.
The GPL’s preamble gives additional context:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
“share and changeâ€Â, not “useâ€Â.
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
“show themâ€Â, not “require them to accept themâ€Â. The users of GPL software have the same basic rights as any software user, i.e. the right to use the software; but they also have additional rights, provided by the GPL, and it’s useful that they are made aware of them — but they don’t have to take advantage of those additional rights, and as a result they don’t have to accept the GPL.
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
1
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Quoting the GPL FAQ:
You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.
Assuming you obtained a piece of GPL-licensed software appropriately (which means that whoever conveyed it to you accepted the license), you don’t need to accept the license merely to use the software. The onus is on distributors because they need additional rights to be allowed to redistribute the software (rights which are provided by the GPL). Copyright law doesn’t deny users the right to use copyrighted works; it restricts their rights to redistribute them, modify them, perform them etc.
The rights “to receive or run a copy of the program†are obtained as a result of the distributor’s acceptance of the license, that’s all that’s needed. The recipient doesn’t need to accept any license.
This is similar to, e.g., going shopping: the vast majority of goods you can buy (or be given, etc.) don’t require anything additional for you to be allowed to use them.
The first paragraph of the answer I’m quoting from is very lenient for authors and users:
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
So effectively your clause isn’t forbidden by the GPL, because it’s ineffective for users: users’ obligations aren’t changed by either accepting the license or not. Accepting the license merely to use the software entails no obligations for users; refusing the license merely to use the software doesn’t deny anything to users.
The GPL’s preamble gives additional context:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
“share and changeâ€Â, not “useâ€Â.
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
“show themâ€Â, not “require them to accept themâ€Â. The users of GPL software have the same basic rights as any software user, i.e. the right to use the software; but they also have additional rights, provided by the GPL, and it’s useful that they are made aware of them — but they don’t have to take advantage of those additional rights, and as a result they don’t have to accept the GPL.
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
1
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Quoting the GPL FAQ:
You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.
Assuming you obtained a piece of GPL-licensed software appropriately (which means that whoever conveyed it to you accepted the license), you don’t need to accept the license merely to use the software. The onus is on distributors because they need additional rights to be allowed to redistribute the software (rights which are provided by the GPL). Copyright law doesn’t deny users the right to use copyrighted works; it restricts their rights to redistribute them, modify them, perform them etc.
The rights “to receive or run a copy of the program†are obtained as a result of the distributor’s acceptance of the license, that’s all that’s needed. The recipient doesn’t need to accept any license.
This is similar to, e.g., going shopping: the vast majority of goods you can buy (or be given, etc.) don’t require anything additional for you to be allowed to use them.
The first paragraph of the answer I’m quoting from is very lenient for authors and users:
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
So effectively your clause isn’t forbidden by the GPL, because it’s ineffective for users: users’ obligations aren’t changed by either accepting the license or not. Accepting the license merely to use the software entails no obligations for users; refusing the license merely to use the software doesn’t deny anything to users.
The GPL’s preamble gives additional context:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
“share and changeâ€Â, not “useâ€Â.
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
“show themâ€Â, not “require them to accept themâ€Â. The users of GPL software have the same basic rights as any software user, i.e. the right to use the software; but they also have additional rights, provided by the GPL, and it’s useful that they are made aware of them — but they don’t have to take advantage of those additional rights, and as a result they don’t have to accept the GPL.
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
Quoting the GPL FAQ:
You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.
Assuming you obtained a piece of GPL-licensed software appropriately (which means that whoever conveyed it to you accepted the license), you don’t need to accept the license merely to use the software. The onus is on distributors because they need additional rights to be allowed to redistribute the software (rights which are provided by the GPL). Copyright law doesn’t deny users the right to use copyrighted works; it restricts their rights to redistribute them, modify them, perform them etc.
The rights “to receive or run a copy of the program†are obtained as a result of the distributor’s acceptance of the license, that’s all that’s needed. The recipient doesn’t need to accept any license.
This is similar to, e.g., going shopping: the vast majority of goods you can buy (or be given, etc.) don’t require anything additional for you to be allowed to use them.
The first paragraph of the answer I’m quoting from is very lenient for authors and users:
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
So effectively your clause isn’t forbidden by the GPL, because it’s ineffective for users: users’ obligations aren’t changed by either accepting the license or not. Accepting the license merely to use the software entails no obligations for users; refusing the license merely to use the software doesn’t deny anything to users.
The GPL’s preamble gives additional context:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
“share and changeâ€Â, not “useâ€Â.
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
“show themâ€Â, not “require them to accept themâ€Â. The users of GPL software have the same basic rights as any software user, i.e. the right to use the software; but they also have additional rights, provided by the GPL, and it’s useful that they are made aware of them — but they don’t have to take advantage of those additional rights, and as a result they don’t have to accept the GPL.
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
answered 2 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
3,163922
3,163922
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
1
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
1
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
Okay, thanks Stephen, I get the point, and that makes some sense. But half-elbowed sense, at best, as follows. If all you want to do is "receive a copy and run the program", then gplv3 already permits that. So why on earth wouldn't you accept it??? It's like you saying, "I want to receive and run this program". And then gplv3 says back to you, "Terrific, you are indeed licensed to do everything you want to do." But then you turn around and say back, "Oh yeah??? Well I don't accept that!!!" So how/why would such a scenario occur? I get your point (thanks, again) but it still isn't making sense.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
If all you want to do is “receive a copy and run the programâ€Â, copyright law already permits that — it requires that the distributor be allowed to distribute the program, it doesn’t require anything of the recipient (although as I understand it, it does try to make the recipient culpable if the distributor isn’t allowed to distribute the program). So as a recipient you don’t need the GPL to be allowed to receive and run the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
1
1
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
The scenario goes along the lines of distributors saying “here, have a copy of this program, and use it however you wantâ€Â, users saying “wow, thanksâ€Â, and distributors going on to say “oh BTW this program is licensed under the GPL, you don’t need to care about that but if you’re interested, it grants you all these additional rights if you accept the corresponding obligationsâ€Â. The latter is what users can refuse (because they don’t agree to the additional obligations); it still doesn’t mean they can no longer use the program.
– Stephen Kitt
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
Okay, then that's what the gpl should say in complete detail, not some broad-brush "you don't have to accept". Laws (and contracts) can be interpreted broadly and/or narrowly (google "broad narrow legal interpretation" for lots of hits). For a contract/license to say "you don't have to accept me", that just opens a whole can of potential worms for a broader-than-intended interpretation, should some related matter ever come under dispute. (I'm not a lawyer, but my father,brother,ex, and lots of friends all are.) So I'm pretty sure this "you don't have to accept" is bad, bad contract language.
– John Forkosh
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7363%2fclarification-of-gpl-v3-section-9%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
