generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[paawan oza]

Hi,

I have a doubt regarding licensing terms set by GPL under which gdb falls too.

Is it legal to discuss the new idea on gdb public mailing list, where idea may 
be already implemented in organisation but person does not belong to the 
organisation.
and the organisation has used gdb and modified gdb undder GPL licensing terms. 
Is there anyway the organisation can legally take action claiming that the idea 
was first implemeted in the organisation (though have taken open source gdb and 
modified it under GPL) ?
so having set out the context, can such ideas be discussed?

Regards,
Oza.



      

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Robert Dewar]

paawan oza wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a doubt regarding licensing terms set by GPL under which gdb falls too.
> 
> Is it legal to discuss the new idea on gdb public mailing list, where idea may 
> be already implemented in organisation but person does not belong to the 
> organisation.
> and the organisation has used gdb and modified gdb undder GPL licensing terms. 
> Is there anyway the organisation can legally take action claiming that the idea 
> was first implemeted in the organisation (though have taken open source gdb and 
> modified it under GPL) ?
> so having set out the context, can such ideas be discussed?

usually yes, unless the organization in question has patented the idea
(yes, I know you are not supposed to be able to patent ideas :-)

You cannot copyright ideas. Note that the *code* to implement the
idea is another matter, this is indeed copyrighted, and should not
be published to the gcc mailing list (or anywhere else without
proper permission).




> 
> Regards,
> Oza.
> 
> 
> 
>       

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[paawan oza]

If I understood correctly,

-> if the idea is patented by the organization then it may not be discussed.

-> if idea is not patented but implemented under GPL (which uses and modifies 
original gdb source code), then it can be discussed.

-> that means organization has no way to claim the idea legally in any terms

right ?

regards,
Oza.



----- Original Message ----
From: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
To: paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 10:33:32 AM
Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

paawan oza wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a doubt regarding licensing terms set by GPL under which gdb falls too.
> 
> Is it legal to discuss the new idea on gdb public mailing list, where idea may 
>be already implemented in organisation but person does not belong to the 
>organisation.
> and the organisation has used gdb and modified gdb undder GPL licensing terms. 
>Is there anyway the organisation can legally take action claiming that the idea 
>was first implemeted in the organisation (though have taken open source gdb and 
>modified it under GPL) ?
> so having set out the context, can such ideas be discussed?

usually yes, unless the organization in question has patented the idea
(yes, I know you are not supposed to be able to patent ideas :-)

You cannot copyright ideas. Note that the *code* to implement the
idea is another matter, this is indeed copyrighted, and should not
be published to the gcc mailing list (or anywhere else without
proper permission).




> 
> Regards,
> Oza.
> 
> 
> 
>      


      

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Martin Schröder]

paawan oza wrote:
> If I understood correctly,
>
> -> if the idea is patented by the organization then it may not be
> discussed.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that the contrary is true. As soon as the 
idea is patented, you're absolutely free to discuss it in whatever detail 
you desire. Of course, you should at least mention that the idea is 
patented.

I mean, that's the whole purpose of patenting: To open up the implementation 
details to allow the progress of science, while ensuring that you still get 
money for it. A patent is simply a trade where the state offers full 
protection of the law that the methods described in the patent were invented 
by you and all they demand back is that you get rid of the trade secrets 
therein and open up the methods for science to exploit. And if they expand 
upon it, they can either pay your licensing fees, sell it to you, or wait 
till the patent expires.


> -> if idea is not patented but implemented under GPL (which uses and
> modifies original gdb source code), then it can be discussed.

Yup. If you can freely get the source code, you can freely talk about its 
details. After all, whatever the source makes the machine do, can also be 
emulated inside the human brain. ;)

> -> that means organization has no way to claim the idea legally in
> any terms

That's the point of patenting (claiming that you invented it), and the 
reason why patents should only be awarded for actual manufacturing processes 
instead of ideas or concepts. And some argue that software is nothing but 
concepts and ideas. ;)

Apart from that, there's pretty much only "prior art". If they can prove 
that they had the idea first, the same idea becomes difficult to patent. Of 
course, you can still use and sell it, but you run the risk of the original 
implementor eventually patenting the process.



Just my two cents,
    Martin. 

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Robert Dewar]

Martin Schröder wrote:
> paawan oza wrote:
>> If I understood correctly,
>>
>> -> if the idea is patented by the organization then it may not be
>> discussed.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but I think that the contrary is true. As soon as the 
> idea is patented, you're absolutely free to discuss it in whatever detail 
> you desire. Of course, you should at least mention that the idea is 
> patented.

I was talking from gcc's point of view of what was desirable, not giving
a legal opinion on whether such discussion was legal :-)

>> -> if idea is not patented but implemented under GPL (which uses and
>> modifies original gdb source code), then it can be discussed.
> 
> Yup. If you can freely get the source code, you can freely talk about its 
> details. After all, whatever the source makes the machine do, can also be 
> emulated inside the human brain. ;)

This is wrong, see my previous discussion
> 
>> -> that means organization has no way to claim the idea legally in
>> any terms
> 
> That's the point of patenting (claiming that you invented it), and the 
> reason why patents should only be awarded for actual manufacturing processes 
> instead of ideas or concepts. And some argue that software is nothing but 
> concepts and ideas. ;)

This is wrong, you can protect things by trade secret, and the fact that
the original base code was obtained under a GPL license does not change
that (in fact it is the GPL license that allows this to be done).

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Martin Schröder]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> Martin Schröder wrote:
>> paawan oza wrote:
>>>
>>> -> if idea is not patented but implemented under GPL (which uses and
>>> modifies original gdb source code), then it can be discussed.
>>
>> Yup. If you can freely get the source code, you can freely talk
>> about its details. After all, whatever the source makes the machine
>> do, can also be emulated inside the human brain. ;)
>
> This is wrong, see my previous discussion

I think we misunderstand each other here. I'm not talking about trade 
secrets, patenting or usability for the GDB project. I'm talking about if 
it's legal to talk about what a given part of GPLed code *does*.

As soon as the GPLed code itself is disclosed (see below for the only time 
when that is NOT the case), it can't technically contain any trade secrets. 
A statement like:

if (isValid) { count +=1; } else { count -= 1; }

simply cannot carry any trade secrets that pertain to what this line of code 
does. If I tell you that this line checks if a variable is set to "true", 
and if it is, increments a variable, and if not, decrements a variable; I 
don't spoil any trade secret. I simply rephrase what the open source code 
already says.

What's in the GPLed code itself is always up for the grabs in that respect. 
The only thing that may contain any form of trade secrets are the reasonings 
behind the code, but it's hard (although not impossible) to completely hide 
the reasoning when you have to explicitly tell the machine what to do.


>>> -> that means organization has no way to claim the idea legally in
>>> any terms
>>
>> That's the point of patenting (claiming that you invented it), and
>> the reason why patents should only be awarded for actual
>> manufacturing processes instead of ideas or concepts. And some argue
>> that software is nothing but concepts and ideas. ;)
>
> This is wrong, you can protect things by trade secret, and the fact
> that the original base code was obtained under a GPL license does not
> change that (in fact it is the GPL license that allows this to be
> done).

Of course you can protect things by declaring them trade secrets, but you 
can't patent those trade secrets without opening them. And if you copy a 
GPLed source, you better publish the alterations to the source code if you 
wish to redistribute the changes (I ignore Tivo-ization and binary blobs for 
the moment).

Only "in-house" changes that are not redistributed elsewhere don't need to 
be opened up, as stated in paragraph 2 (Basic Permissions) of the GPLv2. For 
everything else, the Paragraph 5 is what is important here. It states:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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:
[...]
5.c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to 
anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore 
apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of 
the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This 
License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it 
does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That means, if Paawan comes into legal possession (i.e. he asked or paid for 
it) of a copy of the code, he may then freely publish it. He may have been 
charged money for it, but nothing in the license may forbid him to publish 
the code.

Of course, you can patent parts (or the whole) of it, in which case Pawaan 
may not redistribute it to others without paying licensing fees (thus making 
it useless to GDB), but *talking* about what the code *does* is allowed 
either way.


Either you publish the source code under the GPL, *or* you say the lines of 
code are a trade secret, but you simply can't have both.

If I'm amiss there (which is possible, given that the GPL is worded to 
endure in the judiciary system), please cite the relevant passage of the 
GPL. It'd be nice to know, you know. ;)


So long,
    Martin. 

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Robert Dewar]

Martin, what you are saying is seriously wrong!

The GPL never automatically forces disclosure of anything.

If you take GPL code, modify it by adding trade secrets,
and then distribute it without giving a GPL license, it
is not the case that somehow you have lost the trade
secrets, or that anyone is free to disclose them. That
is not at all the case.

Yes, it is true that if you grant a GPL license to someone
for the distrtibuted object, then of course there are no ytrade
secrets.

But NO ONE EVER forces you to issue a GPL license.

You most certainly can redistribute without granting
such a license (and if there are trade secrets present,
then indeed you cannot grant a valid GPL license anyway).

Now if you *DO* redistribute in this manner, you have likely
committed a copyright violation, actionable in the usual way.

In response to such a claim of copyright violation, you can
AT YOUR DISCRETION, cure the infringement in the future by
granting a GPL license, but no one forces you to do so,

The GPL NEVER forces you to disclose anything, it simply
says that if you meet certain disclosure and distribution
requirements then you have a license to redistribute, that's
all!

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[paawan oza]

well, actually my intension was to understand legal, license and employer's 
right point of view.
I remember when I submit a patch for gdb, my employer used to evaluate its 
business sense and value and revenue capabilities.
then considering certain factors, they allow it to go to open source.

so I was confused having so many terms used together such as GPL, redistribute, 
modifying source code etc.
so I came up with the hyphothetical scnerio.

thank you for the inputs as licensing issues are also good to know and their 
legal consequences. : )

Regards,
Oza.



----- Original Message ----
From: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
To: Martin Schröder <lionhead@onlinehome.de>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 9:48:11 PM
Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

Martin, what you are saying is seriously wrong!

The GPL never automatically forces disclosure of anything.

If you take GPL code, modify it by adding trade secrets,
and then distribute it without giving a GPL license, it
is not the case that somehow you have lost the trade
secrets, or that anyone is free to disclose them. That
is not at all the case.

Yes, it is true that if you grant a GPL license to someone
for the distrtibuted object, then of course there are no ytrade
secrets.

But NO ONE EVER forces you to issue a GPL license.

You most certainly can redistribute without granting
such a license (and if there are trade secrets present,
then indeed you cannot grant a valid GPL license anyway).

Now if you *DO* redistribute in this manner, you have likely
committed a copyright violation, actionable in the usual way.

In response to such a claim of copyright violation, you can
AT YOUR DISCRETION, cure the infringement in the future by
granting a GPL license, but no one forces you to do so,

The GPL NEVER forces you to disclose anything, it simply
says that if you meet certain disclosure and distribution
requirements then you have a license to redistribute, that's
all!

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Martin Schröder]

Since this posting has nothing to do with GDB anymore, I think it's best if 
we moved this from the mailing list to regular E-Mail.

Basically, my closing statement is:
I concur with Tom Tromey: If in doubt, ask the FSF. It's just that I don't 
see how I could doubt the legitimacy of talking about code that is correctly 
and willingly licensed to you under GPL terms.


For completeness sake, below is my complete argument, which can be skipped 
by everyone who is not interested in it. ;)


Robert Dewar wrote:
> Martin, what you are saying is seriously wrong!
>
> The GPL never automatically forces disclosure of anything.
>
> If you take GPL code, modify it by adding trade secrets,
> and then distribute it without giving a GPL license, it
> is not the case that somehow you have lost the trade
> secrets, or that anyone is free to disclose them. That
> is not at all the case.
>
> Yes, it is true that if you grant a GPL license to someone
> for the distrtibuted object, then of course there are no ytrade
> secrets.
>
> But NO ONE EVER forces you to issue a GPL license.
>
> You most certainly can redistribute without granting
> such a license (and if there are trade secrets present,
> then indeed you cannot grant a valid GPL license anyway).
>
> Now if you *DO* redistribute in this manner, you have likely
> committed a copyright violation, actionable in the usual way.
>
> In response to such a claim of copyright violation, you can
> AT YOUR DISCRETION, cure the infringement in the future by
> granting a GPL license, but no one forces you to do so,
>
> The GPL NEVER forces you to disclose anything, it simply
> says that if you meet certain disclosure and distribution
> requirements then you have a license to redistribute, that's
> all!


I think our problem stems from the fact, that we look at the problem from 
diametrically opposed sides.

As far as I understand you, you quite correctly point out that the GPL does 
not carry the force of law. It is merely a license which is not enforced by 
any specific law, but instead supported by the laws concerning copyright and 
licensing issues. The GPL in and of itself does not grant you any liberties 
or restricts your action in the direct sense that criminal and public laws 
do.

I can't argue with that fact, indeed it would be foolish to do so.


But that's not at all where I'm coming from. The original question contained 
the following sentence:
"And the organisation has used gdb and modified gdb undder GPL licensing 
terms."

I am fully aware that you can understand this in two ways:

1.) The organisation has taken GDB and modified it, either for internal use 
without redistribution (1.a), or with redistribution to someone else (1.b), 
and witholds the code.

2.) The organisation has taken GDB, modified it and redistributes or plans 
to redistribute it under the GPL.


If it's case 1.a) *without* redistribution, I fully support your point. The 
changes have to be regarded as trade secrets and the GPL fully covers this 
use. You can't touch them, but they quite surely can sue you.

If it's case 1.b) *with* redistribution, we enter muddy territory. Yes, they 
are not forced to publish the code under the GPL, but you *can* sue them for 
copyright / license violation and given the FSF's/EFF's track record, you 
would most likely win, whereupon the GPL does apply to the redistributed 
code, which means that the code is freely visible, which means that no judge 
or jury would be able to convict you for just discussing what the code 
*does*. Afterall, you just rephrase what everyone can see for themselves 
anyway. If the code's patented, you won't be able to use it, but you may 
talk about it.

Of course, the company can still sue you anyway, especially during the time 
they themselves are sued, so it's still dangerous in a way to talk about the 
code. So yes, I do agree with your point there, too.


But what I argued for was case 2. What happens when the company *does* 
publish the changes and licenses it under GPL terms. Could they sue you for 
saying what the code does? I already explained why I don't think they could 
have any trade secrets that they could enforce that would be touched just by 
viewing and explaining the source.

That leaves patents and selling the software. If it is patented, you *can* 
freely talk about the code, even if you can't use it without paying 
licensing fees. Selling the source code (patent or not) seems to be covered 
by the GPL, but the code you acquire *must* be licensed to you under the GPL 
terms in that case, or you again have the second version of case 1.). And if 
you have it under GPL terms, you can talk about it, because you yourself 
must be able to distribute the changes (after paying the appropriate 
licensing fees if applicable).

Anyway, I don't see how you could be sued for talking about a piece of code 
that *is* correctly licensed to you under GPL terms. Or at least, you could 
be sued, but they wouldn't have a chance in hell to win.


So, you see, my approach is not what they are forced to do, but what you can 
do without getting (successfully) sued. And I simply don't see a way to be 
sued for a correctly GPL-licensed piece of code.



But other than that, I concur with Tom Tromey: If in doubt, ask the FSF. 
It's just that I don't see how I could doubt the legitimacy of case number 
2.). :)


So long,
    Martin. 

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Steffen Dettmer]

On Fri, Aug 13, Martin Schröder <gschroeder@onlinehome.de> wrote:
>> If you take GPL code, modify it by adding trade secrets,
>> and then distribute it without giving a GPL license, it
>> is not the case that somehow you have lost the trade
>> secrets, or that anyone is free to disclose them. That
>> is not at all the case.
> I concur with Tom Tromey: If in doubt, ask the FSF. It's just
> that I don't see how I could doubt the legitimacy of talking
> about code that is correctly and willingly licensed to you
> under GPL terms.

did someone asked FSF and if so, could you please tell the
result?

As I understood, one of the most essential key points of GPL is
exactly that it is not possible to licence code under terms of
GPL and redistribute any derived work without offering this
derived work also under the terms of the GPL.
So I think "take GPL code, modify it [...] and then distribute it
without giving a GPL license" simply is not allowed at all.

Could someone please clarify?

oki,

Steffen

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Robert Dewar]

Steffen Dettmer wrote:

> As I understood, one of the most essential key points of GPL is
> exactly that it is not possible to licence code under terms of
> GPL and redistribute any derived work without offering this
> derived work also under the terms of the GPL.
> So I think "take GPL code, modify it [...] and then distribute it
> without giving a GPL license" simply is not allowed at all.

True, if by "not allowed at all" you mean "is a potential
copyright infringement", I say potential here, because there
are many exceptions that may exempt a specific case from
being infringing.

But my point was that if you do this (and are thus in a
position of potential copyright infringement), this act
does not cause you to lose rights to your trade secrets
or copyrighted code that may have been distributed at the
same time.

If you are judged to have infringed, then you must cure
the copyright infringement in the future. In the case of
the GPL, one way you could do this *at your option* is
to release all your code under the GPL, but you are never
forced to do this.
> 
> Could someone please clarify?
> 
> oki,
> 
> Steffen

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Steffen DETTMER]

* Robert Dewar wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 17:33 -0400:
> Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> 
> >As I understood, one of the most essential key points of GPL is
> >exactly that it is not possible to licence code under terms of
> >GPL and redistribute any derived work without offering this
> >derived work also under the terms of the GPL.
> >So I think "take GPL code, modify it [...] and then distribute it
> >without giving a GPL license" simply is not allowed at all.
> 
> But my point was that if you do this (and are thus in a
> position of potential copyright infringement), this act
> does not cause you to lose rights to your trade secrets
> or copyrighted code that may have been distributed at the
> same time.

Thank you for explaining. I think now I see the point.

I assumed that in such a case the source code /must/ be made
available, if the owner rejects that, court would enforce it, as
for example happend with LinkSys WRT.

But of course this was though to short. For example it could not
be that someone includes third-party code which ends up as GPL'd
sources because someone else put it into work derived from GPL'd
product. Also, the violator could buy a different licence from
the copyright holder (which might be given
alternatively/additionally to the GPL).

> If you are judged to have infringed, then you must cure
> the copyright infringement in the future. In the case of
> the GPL, one way you could do this *at your option* is
> to release all your code under the GPL, but you are never
> forced to do this.

Yes, thank you for the explanation.
(so in the example of LinkSys they released the code because the
alternative - not using a firmware on the routers - was no option).

oki,

Steffen

--[ end of message ]----------------------------------------------->8=======













































 
About Ingenico: Ingenico is a leading provider of payment solutions, with over 15 million terminals deployed in more than 125 countries. Its 2,850 employees worldwide support retailers, banks and service providers to optimize and secure their electronic payments solutions, develop their offer of services and increase their point of sales revenue. More information on http://www.ingenico.com/.
 This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
 P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
 
 

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Florian Weimer]

* Martin Schröder:

> As soon as the GPLed code itself is disclosed (see below for the only
> time when that is NOT the case), it can't technically contain any
> trade secrets.

This is not true at all.  For instance, there is code under the GPL
which implements CSS, and it's publicly available, yet CSS is still a
trade secret.

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Robert Dewar]

paawan oza wrote:
> If I understood correctly,
> 
> -> if the idea is patented by the organization then it may not be discussed.

I was answering from the point of gcc, if you discuss a patented idea,
we can't use it anyway, so the discussion is useless. Actually patented
stuff is open knowledge, so it can be discussed legally, but it is 
useless to do so, and discussing it without disclosing the existence
of the patent could be actively harmful.
> 
> -> if idea is not patented but implemented under GPL (which uses and modifies 
> original gdb source code), then it can be discussed.

Only if your employer permits this discussion
> 
> -> that means organization has no way to claim the idea legally in any terms

What gives you that idea? It's completely wrong, it may very well be 
that the idea is trade secret.

If you don't redistribute stuff, you are free to do proprietary secret
changes for your own use

Please do NOT think that the GPL gives you permission to disclose your
employers trade secrets or you can get into real trouble!

Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> ">" == paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com> writes:

>> I have a doubt regarding licensing terms set by GPL under which gdb
>> falls too.

>> Is it legal to discuss the new idea on gdb public mailing list, where
>> idea may be already implemented in organisation but person does not
>> belong to the organisation.

It is best to refer these questions to the FSF.
There should be a contact listed on their web site.

Tom