law question

law question

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

What happens if there is a company only when the code gets
released just moments before it is rewritten as FOSS?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: law question

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> [2021-05-22 00:00]:
> What happens if there is a company only when the code gets
> released just moments before it is rewritten as FOSS?

What happens is that people start asking about it...

Author may change the licensing of some software, but not for previous
versions already distributed and received. But if you have never
received it and nobody else received it who can give it to you, bad
luck.

Example is the SugarCRM, they had community version and they stopped
making a community version, so they discontinued free software
releases and sell only proprietary. However, nobody can take you away
the license once granted for the previous version. See example:
https://github.com/matthewpoer/SugarCRM-Community-Edition/tree/master/OldFiles 

Same thing would be if some company arrives and wish to take over the
software, it does not matter for the recipient. If you have downloaded
it with specific license you have got your rights. And then you could
make your own fork if you wish: https://suitecrm.com/


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: law question

[Christopher Dimech]

We would need more details, e.g. the original release license.  If it is to be free
software the implementation went be different if the two licences are incompatible.


> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 8:59 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: law question
>
> What happens if there is a company only when the code gets
> released just moments before it is rewritten as FOSS?
>
> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Re: law question

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> We would need more details, e.g. the original release
> license. If it is to be free software the implementation
> went be different if the two licences are incompatible.

Should we assume the worst-case scenario?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: law question

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> [2021-05-22 00:22]:
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> > We would need more details, e.g. the original release
> > license. If it is to be free software the implementation
> > went be different if the two licences are incompatible.
> 
> Should we assume the worst-case scenario?

Ah no, it is software, if it is in your hands, it is as
yours... 

Licenses are only there to defend in courts, which should never
happen. But in Sweden, who knows...

Btw. I have always respected free software licenses but never
proprietary licenses. It is sad world without Warez.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: law question

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Jean Louis wrote:

> Ah no, it is software, if it is in your hands, it is as
> yours...

Yes, but what of everyone else's hands?

> Licenses are only there to defend in courts, which should never
> happen. But in Sweden, who knows...

These who know know :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: law question

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 9:21 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: law question
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > We would need more details, e.g. the original release
> > license. If it is to be free software the implementation
> > went be different if the two licences are incompatible.
>
> Should we assume the worst-case scenario?

Only if we cannot get all the required information to decide if we can use the code.

In principle, we should use all legal instruments at our disposal to use the code.
Have discussed with Richard that we customarily introduce cautionary attitudes
without good reason, which forces some to rewrite code for nothing.

> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Re: law question

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

>> Should we assume the worst-case scenario?
>
> Only if we cannot get all the required information to decide
> if we can use the code.

Right, do you also happen to know what precedents there are?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

law question

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:15 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: law question
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> >> Should we assume the worst-case scenario?
> >
> > Only if we cannot get all the required information to decide
> > if we can use the code.
>
> Right, do you also happen to know what precedents there are?

Precedents in regards to what aspects?

> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

law question

[Christopher Dimech]

The GPL was found to be an enforceable set of copyright terms (a license) in 
Jacobsen v. Katzer.  What has changed now is that for the purposes of the court,
the GPL is both a license, which can be enforced through a claim of copyright
infringement, and a contract, which can be enforced through a claim of breach
of contract (Artifex v. Hancom).  You can allege both in your court claim in a
single case, and fall back on one if you can’t prove the other.  Thus, the potential
to enforce the GPL in court is very strong. 


> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:15 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: law question
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> >> Should we assume the worst-case scenario?
> >
> > Only if we cannot get all the required information to decide
> > if we can use the code.
> 
> Right, do you also happen to know what precedents there are?
> 
> -- 
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
> 
> 
>

Re: law question

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> The GPL was found to be an enforceable set of copyright
> terms (a license) in Jacobsen v. Katzer. What has changed
> now is that for the purposes of the court, the GPL is both
> a license, which can be enforced through a claim of
> copyright infringement, and a contract, which can be
> enforced through a claim of breach of contract (Artifex v.
> Hancom). You can allege both in your court claim in a single
> case, and fall back on one if you can’t prove the other.
> Thus, the potential to enforce the GPL in court is
> very strong.

Case closed! :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: law question

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 9:21 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: law question
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > We would need more details, e.g. the original release
> > license. If it is to be free software the implementation
> > went be different if the two licences are incompatible.
>
> Should we assume the worst-case scenario?

You could ask for a disclaimer of rights from said company.  What license was
it released under?

> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Re: law question

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 00:34:12 +0200
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 9:21 AM
> > From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> > To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: law question
> >
> > Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >
> > > We would need more details, e.g. the original release
> > > license. If it is to be free software the implementation
> > > went be different if the two licences are incompatible.
> >
> > Should we assume the worst-case scenario?
> 
> You could ask for a disclaimer of rights from said company.  What license was
> it released under?

Could you guys please take this thread elsewhere?  It has nothing to
do with Emacs per se, neither with its development nor with helping
its users.  Moving the discussion to emacs-tangents sounds like a good
idea to me.

TIA