Re: Final text of GPL v3

(First: apologies. This message probably won't thread
properly. This is
because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the
Usenet gateway
is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the list
email
address. The trouble is my email client has no message to
reply to,
because it's not my NNTP client.)

Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
>   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
[...]
>     d) If the work has interactive user interfaces,
each must display
>     Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program
has interactive
>     interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal
Notices, your
>     work need not make them do so.

Francesco Poli worries:
> It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any*
interactive
> interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that when
a
> non-interactive work is modified so that it becomes an
interactive
> work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement these
features in *any*
> newly created interactive interface.
Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally? I'm
concentrating
on the bit from "however". Suppose: I receive a
program under the GPL 3.
I create a new interface for the program, without the legal
notices.

The license says that, when distributing my modified
version, I "need
not make" interfaces of "the Program" that
don't display a legal notice
display a legal notice. I think, then, to be exempt from the
requirement
to make user interfaces display legal notices, my modified
version of
the Program would have to count as just "the
Program".

Consider that "The Program" is defined as:
>  "The Program" refers to any copyrightable
work licensed under this
> License. 
When I convey a modified source version, 5c) requires the
entire
modified work be licensed under the GPL. This then means
that when you
convey a modified "the Program", the new bits are
licensed, and so the
whole modified program becomes just "the Program".
I do not need to add
legal notices to interfaces of "the Program" that
lack then.

I'm curious how far fetched people think this is.

If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of
this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces
that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any
user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or
not.


-- 
Iain Nicol


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmasterlists.debian.org

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:

[...]
> Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> >   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> [...]
> >     d) If the work has interactive user
interfaces, each must
> >     display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if
the Program has
> >     interactive interfaces that do not display
Appropriate Legal
> >     Notices, your work need not make them do so.
> 
> Francesco Poli worries:
> > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in
*any* interactive
> > interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that
when a
> > non-interactive work is modified so that it
becomes an interactive
> > work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement
these features in
> > *any* newly created interactive interface.
> Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?

I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(

> I'm
> concentrating on the bit from "however".
Suppose: I receive a program
> under the GPL 3. I create a new interface for the
program, without the
> legal notices.

If the work, as you received it, has *no* interactive
interfaces, the
exception granted with the "however" sentence does
*not* apply.
As a consequence, *any* interactive interface you add to a
non-interactive work *must* display Appropriate Legal
Notices.

> 
> The license says that, when distributing my modified
version, I "need
> not make" interfaces of "the Program"
that don't display a legal
> notice display a legal notice. I think, then, to be
exempt from the
> requirement to make user interfaces display legal
notices, my modified
> version of the Program would have to count as just
"the Program".
> 
> Consider that "The Program" is defined as:
> >  "The Program" refers to any
copyrightable work licensed under this
> > License. 
> When I convey a modified source version, 5c) requires
the entire
> modified work be licensed under the GPL. This then
means that when you
> convey a modified "the Program", the new bits
are licensed, and so the
> whole modified program becomes just "the
Program". I do not need to
> add legal notices to interfaces of "the
Program" that lack then.

Unfortunately, I don't think this interpretation is
correct.
In the context of section 5 (and of other sections too), the
"Program"
refers to the GPLv3'd work, as you received it, while the
"work [based
on the Program]" is the modified version of the work
that you produced
by modifying the Program.

Let me quote the relevant part of section 5:

|   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
| 
|   You may convey a work based on the Program, or the
modifications to
| produce it from the Program, in the form of source code
under the
| terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of
these
| conditions:
[...]


> 
> I'm curious how far fetched people think this is.
> 
> If this interpretation were true, then the only burden
of this section
> would be to keep the legal notices in the user
interfaces that you
> keep, but you would *not* be required to add any
notices to any user
> interface, regardless of whether you wrote the
interface or not.

I have tried to convince the FSF to drop clause 5d or, at
least, to
relax it so that it only required what you have just said:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/com
ments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id
=709
http://gpl
v3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20
gplv3-draft-1%20%%3E&id=1659
http://gpl
v3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20
gplv3-draft-1%20%%3E&id=2764
http://gplv3.fsf.org/co
mments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&i
d=3214

but, unfortunately, I failed.   :-(


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_
workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
.....................................................
Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B
DD6D FCF4

[cc'd to curiosa because I'm not sure where else it should
go and
replies there and cc'd to me, not to -legal, please]

Iain Nicol <iainthenicols.net> wrote:
> (First: apologies. This message probably won't thread
properly. This is
> because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the
Usenet gateway
> is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the
list email
> address. The trouble is my email client has no message
to reply to,
> because it's not my NNTP client.)

The gateway is two way, but you need to register with Marco
d'Itri's
linux-gate service at
http://lists
.bofh.it/listinfo/linux-gate
- you should have been told that by your newsserver, IIRC.

Alternatively, save the message to a file, strip the
X-Original- parts
from some headers and delete the original Date, References
and Message-Id.
With sed, I think it's something like this:

#!/bin/sed -f
1i
>From news  Thu Mar 22 12:59:12 2007
/^(Date|References|Message-Id)/I,/^([A-Z]|$)/d
/^X-Original-/s///

Then open that as a mailbox and you should be able to reply
properly.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.o
rg/~mjr/
Please follow 
http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmasterlists.debian.org

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:16:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli
wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
> > Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL
3:
> > Francesco Poli worries:
> > > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement
in *any* interactive
> > > interface of my modified work. [...] it seems
that when a
> > > non-interactive work is modified so that it
becomes an interactive
> > > work, the modifier is *compelled* to
implement these features in
> > > *any* newly created interactive interface.
> > Could this requirement be interpreted more
liberally?
> I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(

Francesco is not a lawyer, that isn't legal advice, it's
almost
certainly not based on legal advice, and those sorts of
questions should
be discussed with either the copyright holder of the work
you want to
modify or a lawyer if you want an answer you can actually
use.

Personally, I think you'll have plenty of luck avoiding the
requirement
if you talk to upstream authors about it (with the possible
exception of
the FSF) who can give you permission in addition to the GPL,
and not much
luck if you talk to lawyers about reading it more liberally
in general.

But YMMV and more importantly your lawyer's mileage may
vary.

Cheers,
aj

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:

[...]
> Francesco is not a lawyer,

I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message
("The usual
disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand why
you seem to have
such fun in pointing fingers at other people and repeating
"he/she's not
a lawyer!", "he/she's not a Debian
developer!"...

> that isn't legal advice,

Since I explicitly noted that IANAL, it goes without saying
that I
cannot give legal advice.

> it's almost
> certainly not based on legal advice,

I would have said so, if I had the opportunity to get legal
advice on
the matter.

> and those sorts of questions
> should be discussed with either the copyright holder of
the work you
> want to modify or a lawyer if you want an answer you
can actually use.
> 
> Personally, I think you'll have plenty of luck avoiding
the
> requirement if you talk to upstream authors about it

Great!  Because free software is about asking every
copyright holder of
each package for permission to do anything!    :-(

> (with the
> possible exception of the FSF)

So, at the end of the day, you too think that the intended
meaning of
the clause can be the one I am afraid it is...   

> who can give you permission in addition
> to the GPL, and not much luck if you talk to lawyers
about reading it
> more liberally in general.
> 
> But YMMV and more importantly your lawyer's mileage may
vary.

Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has
to say
about this clause and its interpretation.

Especially considering that works released under the terms
of GNU GPL v3
are already entering Debian: see bug #431165...


Big disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, ATATIAAWBI (According
To Anthony
                 Towns, I Am Always Wrong Because
IANADD/IANAL), ...


BTW, are *you* a lawyer?
Is *your* reply legal advice?
Or is it *based* on legal advice?


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_
workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
.....................................................
Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B
DD6D FCF4

Francesco Poli <frxfirenze.linux.it> wrote:
> Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real
lawyer has to say
> about this clause and its interpretation.

sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
and depending on the context will contradict themselves.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.n
et
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmasterlists.debian.org

Thomas Dickey wrote:
> sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
> and depending on the context will contradict
themselves.

Well, if clients contradict each other the lawyer has no
choice
but to play along...

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney -
Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
              Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmasterlists.debian.org

On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns
wrote:
> > Francesco is not a lawyer,
>
> I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment
message ("The usual
> disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand
why you seem to have
> such fun in pointing fingers at other people and
repeating "he/she's not
> a lawyer!", "he/she's not a Debian
developer!"...

Francesco...  as I've said on this list before,
"IANAL" is not a sufficient 
disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal
advice."  There are laws, 
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by
those who not 
certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the
advice is given 
in.  There is no exception provided by adding disclaimers,
there is only the 
question of whether or not legal advice was given.

You can raise questions as to whether something is, or is
not, legal advice.  
But definitive statements like "I wish it could, but I
am afraid it 
cannot..." in response to a question about the meaning
of a particular term 
in a legal document is arguably legal advice.  

> > that isn't legal advice,
>
> Since I explicitly noted that IANAL, it goes without
saying that I
> cannot give legal advice.

This, of course, is patently false.  Anyone can provide
legal advice...  
people do it all the time ("gee Bob, you should claim X
on your taxes", 
or "the judge will reduce your ticket if you show up in
court", etc).  You 
don't have to be a lawyer to provide it, you just need to be
a lawyer to do 
so legally in those jursidictions that require
certification.  Of course, the 
law is an awfully grey space, so there's lots of
flexibility, and for the 
most part lay-persons can get away with providing legal
advice to their 
friends because the relationship is clear.  Here, on an
email list 
entitled "debian-legal" I think one might have a
reasonable expectation that 
actual lawyers were providing advice.

To that end, Mr. Towns' continued reminders that you are
not, in fact, a 
lawyer, is helpful to those who may be mistaken that you
are, as it would 
appear, providing legal advice.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogggmail.com
w: http://blog.probonogeek.
org/

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before,
"IANAL" is not a sufficient 
> disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal
advice."  There are laws, 
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by
those who not 
> certified by the Bar Association within the
jurisdiction the advice is given 
> in. 

Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where
Francesco appears 
to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to
him?

> There is no exception provided by adding disclaimers,
there is only the 
> question of whether or not legal advice was given.

How are you defining "legal advice"? If it is
"advice on matters which 
may relate to the law", then that could be taken to be
anything. It's a 
definition so broad as to be useless.

> This, of course, is patently false.  Anyone can provide
legal advice...  
> people do it all the time ("gee Bob, you should
claim X on your taxes", 
> or "the judge will reduce your ticket if you show
up in court", etc).  You 
> don't have to be a lawyer to provide it, you just need
to be a lawyer to do 
> so legally in those jursidictions that require
certification.  

So if the speaker in your "Bob" example is in one
of these 
jurisdictions, saying what he said is technically illegal?
Do you not 
think that this makes the law an ass?

> Of course, the 
> law is an awfully grey space, so there's lots of
flexibility, and for the 
> most part lay-persons can get away with providing legal
advice to their 
> friends because the relationship is clear.  Here, on an
email list 
> entitled "debian-legal" I think one might
have a reasonable expectation that 
> actual lawyers were providing advice.

Why? I've never seen that happen (although I've only been on
the list 
for a year or two). It's certainly not a regular
occurrence.

Does this line of argument mean that when I watch
"Boston Legal", and 
decide to follow the advice some of those (fictional)
lawyers gave their 
clients, I can sue the program when it all goes wrong,
because the word 
"Legal" in the name gave me a reasonable
expectation that they were 
providing "legal advice"?

Gerv


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmasterlists.debian.org

On Sunday 01 July 2007 00:24, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before,
"IANAL" is not a sufficient
> disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal
advice."  There are laws,
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by
those who not
> certified by the Bar Association within the
jurisdiction the advice is
> given in.  There is no exception provided by adding
disclaimers, there is
> only the question of whether or not legal advice was
given.

You are amazing Sean.  You do not state "IANAL"
and therefore we conclude
that you are "certified" to practice law in every
jurisdiction in which
debian-legal is read ... or did you think Italian law
permits a foreign
attorney to provide legal advice by email concerning Italian
law to an
Italian citizen in Italy?  Guess you're going to have to
plan vacations
kind of carefully to avoid all those countries where you're
now a felon.
As an officer of the court, you will be promptly confessing
your crimes
to your state bar association, right?

Personally, IANAL.  I don't give legal advice.  I argue law
all I want.

--Mike Bird


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmasterlists.debian.org