IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The first bit is right.
If you distribute it to the contractor, then the contractor is free to do as he pleases with it.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Really?
Does it matter if the contractor is in-house or external?

He seems to have a very loose definition of "distribute".
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Shouldn't matter.
If you give a copy of the code to someone, they can distribute it AFAIK.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New If you _give_ the contractor the code, maybe.
If they are working on it in-house, I think not. You can't give out the binaries without the source, though. If they get a copy of their own, well, you've distributed it. I wouldn't think t applies if the STOLE a copy of the in-house work.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New The right definition of distribute is set by copyright law
If you're potentially violating the copyright of the person whose code you've copied, then you need to accept the GPL or else open yourself up for copyright violations.

In some of the situations described, the recipient would have agreed to a contract (eg an NDA) limiting their ability to redistribute the code. IANAL, but I suspect that said contracts would trump the GPL.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Yes it would
I researched this a couple of years ago. According to the GPL, you have to give the sources to the parties to whom you distribute the binaries. It is completely silent on whether or not you can constrain their rights to further distribute either the binaries or the sources by contract. It does constrain your rights to forbid further changes to the code to suit their purposes; they can do what they want with the sources, including modifying them and recompiling them.

This is why the GPL is such a good license for clients and vendors esp. wrt custom development; the customer gets a copy of the sources, and they can modify said software later if they need to by hiring someone else to do the work if the original vendor is either too expensive or unable to do the work for another reason (like death, for example). However, it can protect the developer because the developer can forbid the customer from further redistributing either the code of the binaries to other parties. This will let the vendor turn around and sign further contracts with other clients for similar code bases without having to worry about claims of the first customer on the code base.

It's a win-win situation for both parties.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Doesn't GPL prohibit additional terms?
I would consider a contractor working on my systems to be performing a work for hire, and therefore I wasn't really "distributing" the code. If that counts as distribution, wouldn't it be impossible to have in-house custom apps? As soon as you deploy the binaries to your users you have "distributed" the code.

If providing code to a contractor counts as distribution, I don't see how you could prohibit further distribution.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New This is a FAQ.
[link|http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution|Internal Distribution]:

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.


and

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.


There are probably other parts of the [link|http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html|FAQ] that cover similar issues.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Note that this disagrees with Jake's understanding above.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New That contradicts what Jake said
That doesn't make one or the other wrong. Considering it still hasn't been tested in court, his interpretation could be upheld despite what the FAQ says about the intent.

The part I still have trouble with is this:
In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
First, why does off-site matter? If I bring contractors into my building, that's not distribution. If I send the code to my branch office in another state, that's not distribution. If I give the code to the contractor next-door to me now it's distribution?

Second, if the contractor works from home and claims a tax deduction on his home office as a place of work, couldn't that be considered "on-site"?

I'm getting the feeling "distribution" needs to be defined better. The GPL describes what rights and obligations you have when distributing, but only the FAQ makes any attmept to define what counts as distribution. And the FAQ isn't part of the license.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Various corrections
First of all the GPL has been tested in court. Twice. In the USA it was [link|http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1168|found] to not cause an immediate enough issue to be grounds for a preliminary judgement. That is, there was not demonstrably material enough harm in allowing that specific violation to persist that the potential violation had to be stopped while the case was still being argued. (This does not indicate that the GPL would not prevail, merely that damage from an ongoing violation was repairable later.) In Germany last year both [link|http://www.a42.com/node/view/157|a preliminary injunction] and [link|http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf|a final judgement] were decided in favour of the GPL.

We're still awaiting a final judgement in the USA on a GPL violation. I suspect that we'll have one before the decade is out, and I'm confident that it will be in favour of the GPL. If the GPL was weak, then why would a series of corporate lawyers over the last decade have come face to face with it and then blinked?

As for defining what distribution is, that is not the job of the GPL. Let's get into the same bind without involving the GPL at all. Suppose that you (some random company) beg and plead for my Super-Duper-Data-Massager. And after being paid I let you have and use it (but grant you no other rights). What are you allowed to do with it? Well under copyright law you're not allowed to distribute it. What does that mean? You'll have to consult a lawyer.

You see, I never gave you the right to distribute my code. Under copyright law and precedent there are various things that you can do which look kind of like distribution but legally aren't. Copyright law gives me no right to complain about those. There are other things you can do that look similar to the first set but which are distribution under copyright. Copyright law gives me the right to sue you about those.

That fuzzy line is also the line of when the GPL will be triggered. As you see, it is a matter of copyright law, not a matter of contract between you and me. The GPL gives you a limited grant of permissions that copyright law does not. The GPL is not, and should not be, in the business of explaining copyright law to you.

About whether Jake is right or wrong, a real lawyer might disagree, but my understanding (IANAL and all that, even though I've talked with lawyers about it) is that the GPL is a very solid license because it does so little. And my understanding of the GPL directly contradicts Jake. As does that FAQ. Furthermore in the absence of precedent, ambiguities in licenses tend to be cleared up in favour of the interpretation of those who wrote them, in which case the stated opinion of the FSF in that FAQ carries considerable weight about what the GPL should be understood to mean.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New So do you agree with Scott's assessment?
(First response to my initial post.)

Since the FSF clearly states that giving the code to an outside contractor counts as distributing your code as GPL, corporations would have to consider that. But to say that you can't even go through a due dillegence process without giving away your proprietary code seems designed to scare companies away from using GPLed code. Laziness, or hit-whoring?
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Yes. Mostly.
If you distribute GPLed code to a contractor, the contractor can do with it as they like.

Where I quibble is that there are things that look a lot like distribution but aren't. For instance if auditors came in to audit your code on site, then I don't think that that would count as distribution. The GPL FAQ agrees on that. So there is a form of due diligence that does not trigger the GPL.

I further suspect that if a court of law required you to hand over code as evidence in a court case, that would also not count as distribution. I don't know the rationale that a lawyer would use to not count it as distribution, but I would be shocked if there isn't one.

Without knowing that rationale, I can't say what its boundaries are and what kinds of pseudo-distribution you can get away with.

But if you distribute, then the GPL is very clear about what happens next.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, if nobody knows about the copyright violation, it may not be a big deal. You would be amazed at the kinds of copyright violations that are ignored in practice. If you're trying to keep your nose clean, you don't want to go there. But unless a copyright holder gets upset enough to go after you (and GPL copyright holders have not demonstrated themselves to be so aggressive), it doesn't in some sense matter that you're technically in violation.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New In that case, you're being compelled
I don't know the rationale that a lawyer would use to not count it as distribution, but I would be shocked if there isn't one.
Odd analogy alert!

Suppose you are an ISP and you discover one of your clients is hosting a child porn site. If you were compelled to turn over the images as evidence, you're clearly not "distributing" them in any meaningful sense.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New That's the idea - but how far does that go?
There are two extremes. I know what happens there.

What is the boundary case?

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New You didn't do your research very well?
From the GPL:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

...

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

(emphasis mine).

Check with a lawyer. Your additional conditions might count as sublicensing, in which case you're not allowed to. And more obviously, your additional contract might count as imposing further restrictions. The GPL is clearly trying to avoid exactly the situation where someone tries to get around it by making people sign another contract first. It is quite explicit about that.

IANAL, but I believe that there exceptions to what counts as "distribution" in certain work situations. For instance if you have proprietary code mixed with GPLed code, nobody can make you distribute it. And it is OK to put that code on a new employee's machine because you're not actually distributing it to them, they are instead becoming part of the legal entity which is your company.

To get it straight as to what is allowed and what is not here, you really need to talk to a lawyer. Because it comes down to what kind of distribution counts as distribution under copyright law. And that isn't always very simple.

However once you've distributed under copyright law, then you either have to release your own code under GPL or violate copyright law yourself. And releasing under GPL does not allow you to try to release it kinda, sorta, but not really freely to that person.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Okay, so we use the Copyright definition of distribute
It hadn't occurred to me that that was already covered.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New what about an IP statement that all contractors sign
interesting point, does a contract alleging all workdone by the contractor belongs to the contractee apply to a GPL product in pre-release stages?
thanx,
bill
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
     FUD FUD FUD FUD - (drewk) - (19)
         The first bit is right. - (admin) - (17)
             Really? - (drewk) - (15)
                 Shouldn't matter. - (admin) - (1)
                     If you _give_ the contractor the code, maybe. - (imric)
                 The right definition of distribute is set by copyright law - (ben_tilly) - (12)
                     Yes it would - (jake123) - (11)
                         Doesn't GPL prohibit additional terms? - (drewk) - (8)
                             This is a FAQ. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                 Note that this disagrees with Jake's understanding above. -NT - (ben_tilly)
                                 That contradicts what Jake said - (drewk) - (5)
                                     Various corrections - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                         So do you agree with Scott's assessment? - (drewk) - (3)
                                             Yes. Mostly. - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                 In that case, you're being compelled - (drewk) - (1)
                                                     That's the idea - but how far does that go? - (ben_tilly)
                         You didn't do your research very well? - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                             Okay, so we use the Copyright definition of distribute - (drewk)
             what about an IP statement that all contractors sign - (boxley)
         I think it's half right - (Arkadiy)

Come inside!
138 ms