Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1386 gnu.misc.discuss:754 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!kozma From: kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Kozma) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License Summary: GPL 2(b) is unenforceable Message-ID: <1934@rex.cs.tulane.edu> Date: 23 Jan 90 08:14:20 GMT References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> Reply-To: kozma@rex.UUCP (John Kozma) Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA Lines: 41 Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: I guess I'm still a bit sheepish since someone pointed out to me, in response to some of my postings last summer on copyright law, that copyright notice is no longer mandatory on published works, as the US is now a signatory to the Berne treaty. I don't think this fact undermines my agrument, however, that section 2(b) of the GNU Public License is unenforceable, at least to the extent that it purports to require the author of a program to relinquish any rights in such program. As I understand the intent of the license, it allows me to distribute copies of, say, GNU library routines (G) linked with my object code (MO), so long as I agree to supply the distributee with my source (MS). The problem is this: I had a copyright in MS before I ever linked it with G, and as the owner of that copyright, I have the exclusive right to make and distribute copies of MS. By subjecting MS to the GPL, I would effectively be giving up these rights. (Yes, I can still make and distribute copies of MS myself, but the exclusive right which constitutes ownership of a copyright means the right to exclude others from making or distributing copies, which I no longer have, because I must allow my distributee to copy and further distribute, and he in turn must allow the same for his distributees, etc.) I think it has been correctly pointed out that being subject to GPL is not equivilant to being in the public domain. Thus, somebody must have exclusive rights for MS, even if I don't, and the only possibility is that the owner of the copyright to G, my licensor, got them. Thus, GPL 2(b) purports to transfer ownership of my copyright in MS to the owner of G, upon my distributing a copy of MO linked to G. But this is not possible under section 204(a) of the copyright law (Title 17 of the US Code), which states: "A transfer of copyright ownership...is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed...." I may try to keep up with this group to see if there are any followups to this post, but I try to be at least as lax about the usenet as I am about my dissertation, so if you have questions about my argument, I'd suggest e-mail. (If there are enough questions/criticisms, I will post a clarified/ modified argument. Please no suggestions that I consult with an intellectual property lawyer, though. I am one.) John P. Kozma kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu