Hello Dolly, Copyright, GPL

[chipbennett]

Actually, it doesn't contain the whole song.

http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundt...llylyrics.html

That site above has a far better case for copyright infringement.

I've wondered why such sites are not found to be copyright-infringing. Perhaps it's because they're positioning themselves as being an "educational" aid while listening to the song? I have no idea. Might have to look up some case law, but I'm not really inclined to ATM.

If anyone other than Matt had written it, people wouldn't raise such a stink over it. ;)

Nah. The Plugin *does* serve a purpose. The problem isn't that Matt's the author, but rather that the Plugin gets special dispensation *because* Matt is the author.

[Ryan]

I've wondered why such sites are not found to be copyright-infringing.

I imagine most song lyric copyright holders have more important things to worry about.

Compare Formula 1 content and NHL hockey footage on YouTube for an interesting example of this. From what I can tell, the NHL seems to consider fan prepared videos to be beneficial or at the very least not a concern to their business mode. Formula 1 on the other hand will sue the pants off anyone caught posting a single snippet of their footage online. F1 footage on YouTube is almost non-existent and anything that does pop up usually dissappears not long after, whereas NHL footage is all over the place and none of it seems to ever be taken down.

Perhaps song writers treat that sort of copyright infringement like the NHL?

Or it could be considered "fair use" - I don't know enough to have an opinion on that side of things.

[hakre]

You never stop to learn. While Pete Mall was questioning that the GPL can terminate I ran over A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance by Bradley M. Kuhn, Aaron Williamson and Karen M. Sandler. Under 5.2 the document is about the termination clauses GPL v2 and v3 have. I quote the part about GPL v2 as it's the license text we have in the package:

If you have redistributed an application under GPLv2, but have violated the terms of GPLv2, you must request a reinstatement of rights from the copyright holders before making further distributions, or else cease distribution and modification of the software forever. Different copyright holders condition reinstatement upon different requirements, and these requirements can be (and often are) wholly independent of the GPL. The terms of your reinstatement will depend upon what you negotiate with the copyright holder of the GPL’d program.

That's really tough stuff. For GPL v3 this has been adopted as it allows that users can recover on their own, which is, following to the document, not possible for GPLv2. I was not aware that §4 of GPL v2 needs you to ask the original copyright holders, but indeed this makes sense.

As Wordpress is a re-distribution of b2cafelog, I wonder a bit where that ends. I need to let settle my thoughts a bit.

[andreasnrb]

Hakre: Well I don't think many of the WP devs know anything about the GPL really. Matt does not, so much is obvious, given this latest affair.
And yup where does it all end.

[chipbennett]

You never stop to learn. While Pete Mall was questioning that the GPL can terminate I ran over A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance by Bradley M. Kuhn, Aaron Williamson and Karen M. Sandler. Under 5.2 the document is about the termination clauses GPL v2 and v3 have. I quote the part about GPL v2 as it's the license text we have in the package:



That's really tough stuff. For GPL v3 this has been adopted as it allows that users can recover on their own, which is, following to the document, not possible for GPLv2. I was not aware that §4 of GPL v2 needs you to ask the original copyright holders, but indeed this makes sense.

As Wordpress is a re-distribution of b2cafelog, I wonder a bit where that ends. I need to let settle my thoughts a bit.

That's an interpretation of the license wording, not the wording of the license itself. Below is the actual wording from GPLv2 clause 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.

Below is the actual wording, from GPLv3 Section 8 (Termination):

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

A reasonable judge may very well determine that reinstatement of rights upon cessation of violation is implicit in GPLv2 - especially since the clarifying nature of GPLv3 agrees with such a conclusion. And that is the logical conclusion, since one could very easily discard the adulterated copy of the work, and re-acquire a "clean" copy - thus restoring all his rights under GPLv2.

[hakre]

Absolutely, that quote is from a document which is the work of some lawyers who in depth are talking about the license but it's not quoting the license. Before I was directly pointing (and quoting) §4 of GPL v2 as well in the mailinglists.

So the document is "only" some view on the license by three folks who at least render it that way. As IANAL nor US and I think they are both all lawyers and from the US, I wouldn't take that statement too lightly. So for the chances in court ;)

It was me who suggested users to remove the copyright infringing material, because I thought it would help them to gain full compliance again. At least I think this shows good faith.

But at the end in GPL v2 §4 is "remain in full compliance". Remain sounds uninterrupted to me. As the distributor has already lost the right to re-distribute, the one who recieved is actually doing a copyright infringement. Therefore to "remain" in full compliance, he must first negotiate with the original copyright holder(s) (again). As far as I know legal folks they take this really word by word.

Or more practically: Let's say, wordpress violates the GPL. Because of that, the rights terminate because it's a re-distribution of b2cafelog (and other software under GPL). Now wordpress must stop distributing the software or start to negotiate with the original copyright holders to be allowed to distribute under GPL again. This somehow really makes sense when you think about enforcement of the GPL for the copyright holders.

And GPL v3 is another license then GPL v2. I don't think you can legally conclude from v3 to v2. And even if you could, as in v3 §8 exact exclusions are given while the right of the copyright holder still exists to explicitly terminate the license because of a violation.

These termination §§ look really powerful to me.

[chipbennett]

But at the end in GPL v2 §4 is "remain in full compliance". Remain sounds uninterrupted to me. As the distributor has already lost the right to re-distribute, the one who recieved is actually doing a copyright infringement. Therefore to "remain" in full compliance, he must first negotiate with the original copyright holder(s) (again). As far as I know legal folks they take this really word by word.

But that would be an illogical conclusion. The presumption of that statement in Clause 4 is that downstream users have received a compromised/GPL-infringing copy of a GPLed work. Thus, "remain in compliance" cannot possibly refer to those downstream users not being out of compliance with the GPL in the first place. Therefore, the statement must imply that those downstream users have some means of coming into compliance.

The only counter-argument that I can see is the "received copies, or rights, from you under this License" clause, since if one adulterates a GPLed work by distributing it in a manner that infringes on the license, any such distributed works are not distributed "under this License", since the license explicitly prohibits such distribution.

Nevertheless, those downstream users still have full rights to the original work, under its original (GPL) license. So restoring the distributed work to its original state would presumably confer the rights of the original license.

Or more practically: Let's say, wordpress violates the GPL. Because of that, the rights terminate because it's a re-distribution of b2cafelog (and other software under GPL). Now wordpress must stop distributing the software or start to negotiate with the original copyright holders to be allowed to distribute under GPL again. This somehow really makes sense when you think about enforcement of the GPL for the copyright holders.

And GPL v3 is another license then GPL v2. I don't think you can legally conclude from v3 to v2. And even if you could, as in v3 §8 exact exclusions are given while the right of the copyright holder still exists to explicitly terminate the license because of a violation.

These termination §§ look really powerful to me.

Powerful, yes: but primarily (if not, only) for the GPL-infringer: that is, the person who modifies the original work to include non-GPL work, or who attempts to re-license under a non-GPL license.

[hakre]

But that would be an illogical conclusion. The presumption of that statement in Clause 4 is that downstream users have received a compromised/GPL-infringing copy of a GPLed work.

I don't think this is illogical, depends on the point of view: Downstream user have recieved nothing, they are doing copyright infringement as the one from whom they recieved the package has already lost rights to distribute the software.

As the usage-right from the GPL are already terminated, the rest left over is a pure copyright thing. Downstream (well actually there is no legal downstream any longer) users need to ensure then that they get rights to redistribute the work on their own based on standard copyright law.

The only counter-argument that I can see is the "received copies, or rights, from you under this License" clause, since if one adulterates a GPLed work by distributing it in a manner that infringes on the license, any such distributed works are not distributed "under this License", since the license explicitly prohibits such distribution.

Which would lead to the same, true. GPL terminated. Users left alone with a copyright infringement as they have no usage-rights.

Nevertheless, those downstream users still have full rights to the original work, under its original (GPL) license. So restoring the distributed work to its original state would presumably confer the rights of the original license.

Well, as you just wrote, the original GPL license still applies and because of the violation the usage-rights are terminated. So the license probably enforces terminated usage-rights then, which makes it obvious again that downstream users do not have any right to even get the software. So the GPL still is in action but in a mode that prevents further use.?!

Update:

According Monsoon GPL violation settlement is not a done deal yet this has come into play in GNU GPL compliance negotaitons by lawyers. I quote only a fragment:

"simply coming into compliance now is not sufficient to settle the matter because that would mean anyone can violate the license until caught, because the only punishment would be to come into compliance."

Makes somehow sense. To learn how this ended, I think this articel has it: SFLC, BusyBox, Monsoon dismiss GPL lawsuit (that's an US BusyBox case, GPL v2).

[WraithKenny]

Its interesting that your lawyer-ly quote is a quote from a press release statement from the plaintiff's lawyer... of course it'd sound favorable to the plaintiff. (If a judge made the statement, it might have some limited weight, but as it is, it just means someone made money, not law.)

This was also settled out of court, not precedence setting. There is precedence however, for cases being decided on considerations of its "chilling effect." (Imagine the "chilling effect" that invalidating every single use-granting license of every WordPress user on the planet would have. How mad must a judge be to turn such a large portion of the content of the internet into infringing evidence and it's creators into criminals?) To avoid this chilling effect, a different interpretation is preferred.

This is the sticking point. In your interpretation, there is no circumstance that the end-user can "remain in full compliance" and so why have the phrase at all? (Unless it was some sort of weird chronological clarification which explicitly states that someone in the future breaking the terms doesn't retroactively revoke end-user rights but that seems just a bit absurd, frankly.)

This can be done by interpreting "remain in full compliance" clause as stating that the end-user never lost rights and has had continuous rights regardless of the state of the intermediate party's behavior; it's the explicit clause that states such, because the phrase itself was even included at all. This particular interpretation makes much more sense then the alternative when considering that the copyright holder is granting the rights to the receiver of the license directly, and not in a must-not-be-broken chain of granting-ness.

The argument could go something like, "since the word 'remain,' a word implying 'uninterrupted,' was deliberately chosen in the phrase 'remain in full compliance,' we find that the end-user's rights are not impacted in anyway by an intermediaries rights or loss thereof..." This interpretation neatly solves the whole riddle does it not?

The end-user can't even violate the GPL granted rights until if/when she attempts to do some COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION of the offending code. (Seriously, you've only got to consider the license when packaging it up.) No matter how un-GPL the package is when you receive the copy, you are still granted usage rights to the GPL portions.