Eric Jacobs <eaj@ricochet.net> writes: > My statement that Bob has all the rights which Andy has but does not > have the requirement of distributing under the GPL is derived from > David Johnson's argument about OSD #7 -- namely, that a recipient of > Open Source software gains all of the rights that the distributor > had with regard to the software, _without_ having to meet any of the > requirements that the distributor did. I'm sorry, I don't get it. OSD #7 appears to me to say just what David Johnson says that it says: the recipient gets the rights of the person who gave him the software. OSD #7 does not say that the recipient has to meet any requirements. > If Andy gives Bob a copy of the software, that does not mean that Bob > should automatically be granted Andy's rights, _without_ meeting the > conditions under which Andy obtained them. Why not? > Scenario 1 > - Andy obtains a copy of a software program. > - Andy reads the license. The license states, in part, that it will > grant him rights to copy, modify, distribute and prepare derivative > works, under certain conditions. The conditions include a requirement > to pay a fee. > - Andy accepts the license. Andy is now granted those rights. Andy > has also now incurred an obligation to pay the fee. > - Andy gives a copy of the program to Bob. (Legally, as Andy has > been granted that right.) > - Bob reads the license. The license states, in part, that if he has > received his copy from somebody who was granted rights under this > license, Bob is also granted those rights. > - Bob accepts (or doesn't accept) the license. In case he accepts, he > does not have to pay a fee to copy, modify, distribute, or prepare > derivative works. > > Scenario 2 > - Andy obtains a copy of a software program. > - Andy reads the license. The license states, in part, that it will > grant him rights to copy, modify, distribute and prepare derivative > works, under certain conditions. The conditions include a requirement > that any derivative works of the software that Andy creates must be > licensed under the GPL. > - Andy accepts the license. Andy is now granted those rights. Andy > has also now incurred an obligation that any derivative work of the > software he should create must be licensed under the GPL. > - Andy gives a copy of the program to Bob. (Legally, as Andy has > been granted that right.) > - Bob reads the license. The license states, in part, that if he has > received his copy from somebody who was granted rights under this > license, Bob is also granted those rights. > [Note: This license is not the GNU GPL, obviously.] > - Bob accepts (or doesn't accept) the license. In case he accepts, he > may prepare derivative works and license them under any license he > chooses. As far as I can tell, your analogy relies on equating ``obligation to pay a fee'' with ``obligation that any derivative works must be under the GPL.'' But those are different cases. Andy has a presumed right to run the program. Andy does not have a presumed right to copy a program. Copyright law restricts copying a program. It does not restrict running a legally obtained copy of a program. I think your argument only holds up if you believe that Bob does not have a right to run a legally obtained copy of a program. It's clear that Bob does not have the right to arbitrarily distribute a legally obtained copy of a program. That's what copyright law is all about. It's not at all clear that Bob does not have a right to run a legally obtained copy of a program. > > A way to work around this is to provide a license which is an open > > source license but which says that every time you run the program you > > must pay the developer a dollar. This gets back to the fact we've > > discussed before, which is that the OSD does not clearly state that the > > recipient is permitted to run the program. > > Whether running a program implicitly involves copying that is an > exclusive right of the copyright holder is, of course, an issue that is > debatable, and it is not what I am primarily interested in here. To > save confusion, let us consider this: > > ) A way to work around this is to provide a license which is an open > ) source license but which says that every time you _copy_ the program you > ) must pay the developer a dollar. But that would violate OSD #1, so that license is not an open source license. > But whether or not shareware-with-source can be practically or legally > enforced is not my main point. My main point is that OSD #7 cannot be > sensibly construed as a criterion that a requirement-to-pay be waived > for users to whom the software is redistributed, *without* also > implying the waiver of other kinds of requirements, such as GNU > GPL-style "viral" requirements. I believe it can, if you believe that the recipient of a legally obtained copy of a program always has the right to run it. Some people do believe it, probably includ Russ. See also http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html I myself am uncertain, which is why I would be happier if the OSD had an explicit statement that a recipient of a program was permitted to run it. But I think you need to tackle that explicitly, rather than sidestepping it as you did in your note. Ian