Calibre and GNU GPL

[user_none]

I will bring up an exemption with Kovid.

OpenOffice still saves to formats like HTML
, ODF... which are code.

[Stodder]

Originally Posted by user_none

I will bring up an exemption with Kovid.

Thank you

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Stodder

Thank you

Calibre does 'Mark-up'
So either there is a lot of GPL media out there open for grabs, or their creators are safe.
I wonder how many Fortune 500 companies create Product using Open Source-GPL software?

[Stodder]

Originally Posted by theducks

Calibre does 'Mark-up'
So either there is a lot of GPL media out there open for grabs, or their creators are safe.
I wonder how many Fortune 500 companies create Product using Open Source-GPL software?

Now, that's food for thought

[kovidgoyal]

IMO this issue is a red herring. Here is what the GPL FAQ has to say on the subject

In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?

Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

Pretty much any GPLed software will include string fragments that it outputs into any output file. Since any output file is capable of being interpreted by some software, if only a hex editor, any output file is "code". As such if someone were to try to claim that the output of a GPLed program is itself GPLed, *every single file* ever produced by a GPL program would then have to be GPLed. That is simply not going to happen.

[Stodder]

Thanks for replying, Kovid. I think I see what you're saying.

Hmm. Maybe the FSF should be more specific in the wording of its GPL licenses?

Once again, I appreciate the varied opinions on this subject

[adun]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

IMO this issue is a red herring. Here is what the GPL FAQ has to say on the subject



http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

Pretty much any GPLed software will include string fragments that it outputs into any output file. Since any output file is capable of being interpreted by some software, if only a hex editor, any output file is "code". As such if someone were to try to claim that the output of a GPLed program is itself GPLed, *every single file* ever produced by a GPL program would then have to be GPLed. That is simply not going to happen.

Except, calibre intentionally writes to the output code its foot print. MS Word does pretty much the same and, if you read the MS Office licence, it says essentially (among other things) that due to this fact, each and every doc ever created with MS Word belongs to MS.
So all your [windows] base are belong to MS.
INAL, but if calibre writes calibre things to the code it outputs, then it transfers the GPL to the said output. Remember why MS called GPL a virus?
Just my 2 cents

[user_none]

Originally Posted by adun

Except, calibre intentionally writes to the output code its foot print

Originally Posted by http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program

A footprint is in no way substantial.

Originally Posted by adun

MS Word does pretty much the same and, if you read the MS Office licence, it says essentially (among other things) that due to this fact, each and every doc ever created with MS Word belongs to MS.

Adding terms of use though an end license user agreement (EULA) is different from copyright extending to the output of an application. Microsoft's term are due to the contract law created between you and Microsoft by agreeing to the EULA.

[Stodder]

Microsoft asserts ownership of doc files?
May I ask which part of the EULA states this? I'm not a lawyer , but I can't remember seeing anything like that.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

IMO this issue is a red herring.

I completely agree. There's no chance that the GPL would be asserted against the output of calibre simply because calibre is itself GPL. That's not to say that it's impossible to get the output to be GPL - just write a recipe that copies all the calibre GPL code to an e-book, but in that case, the output would be GPL because the input was GPL.

Moreover, it's not possible even for Kovid to add an "ebook exemption" to strip the GPL protection from such an ebook.

IMO, 1) the likelihood of the GPL being asserted by the FSF against output produced by calibre is indistinguishable from zero, and ) even if it was asserted, the possibility that a court would agree the GPL applies is even closer to zero.

If you worry about such things, you should also start worrying that you will win the lottery and immediately be stuck by a meteorite.

[user_none]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Moreover, it's not possible even for Kovid to add an "ebook exemption" to strip the GPL protection from such an ebook.

It is possible. The GPL does allow for these types of exceptions. GCC and Bison both have them.

To make any license changes Kovid would need to get permission from all copyright holders. This is a limited number of people and if KDE can do it with thousands of people then Kovid can do it with 30ish(?).

Everyone would need to agree to the change but I doubt anyone would object.

Originally Posted by Starson17

IMO, 1) the likelihood of the GPL being asserted by the FSF against output produced by calibre is indistinguishable from zero

It is 0. The FSF holds not copyright over any calibre code so they have no rights toward filing a lawsuit or enforcing the terms. Only a copyright holder can assert those rights. The FSF is the author of the GPL but that does not give the FSF rights over projects using the license.

The FSF is the assinged rights holder for most GNU software. So they have right to and do enforce the terms of the GPL over a large amount of GNU software.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by user_none

It is possible. The GPL does allow for these types of exceptions. GCC and Bison both have them.

To make any license changes Kovid would need to get permission from all copyright holders. This is a limited number of people and if KDE can do it with thousands of people then Kovid can do it with 30ish(?).

He can do it for any of the contributor's code, but calibre uses other GPL code, too. My point was that it's not possible to write an exception that strips all GPL from input simply because the exception says that calibre output is not GPL. I agree that it's possible to write an exception for any GPL code added to the input as a byproduct of the conversion process. (formatting code, etc.)

It would even be possible to write an exception that would strip GPL from calibre code, but it's not something I think anyone here wants or supports. Personally, I think it's a bogus issue, for the reasons I stated, and wouldn't bother with it. It's not a real issue and I'd hate to see anyone waste time on it. If an exception was written, it would require care to write correctly.

It is 0. The FSF holds not copyright over any calibre code so they have no rights toward filing a lawsuit or enforcing the terms. Only a copyright holder can assert those rights. The FSF is the author of the GPL but that does not give the FSF rights over projects using the license.

The FSF is the assinged rights holder for most GNU software. So they have right to and do enforce the terms of the GPL over a large amount of GNU software.

I understood that FSF would sometimes act on behalf of the copyright owner, when requested to do so by the rights holder, and that they had procedures for accepting a transfer of rights to allow them to do that. I was speaking loosely when I referred to the FSF, and you are correct, the copyright owner holds the right to enforce the GPL applied to his work, not the FSF directly, unless some transfer has been made.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Stodder

Hmm. Maybe the FSF should be more specific in the wording of its GPL licenses?

Aside from the people who believe the FUD-slingers, nobody thinks that the GPL would apply to data files produced by a GPL-licensed program. And for those who believe in the FUD, nothing would convince them anyway.

Originally Posted by adun

Remember why MS called GPL a virus?

Yes, in order to promote their own products.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Aside from the people who believe the FUD-slingers, nobody thinks that the GPL would apply to data files produced by a GPL-licensed program.

And suppose someone claimed that the GPL did apply to a chunk of output by some strained GPL interpretation that the CSS, HTML or formatting was "code" covered under the GPL. Because the GPL only applies when the "code" is redistributed, all the user would have to do is reformat the content with their own formatting or remove the allegedly GPL code, (or get a license from the code copyright holder). AFAIK, there has never been a case where anyone has had to pay damages for past violation of the GPL, so simply removing the alleged GPL content would fix the problem.

Despite the FUD spread by some that the GPL is "viral," it does not attach to non-GPL content that is separable. I don't actually know the scenario that the OP had in mind, but for simple conversions of non-GPL content, there is simply no reason to have any concern. In the worst case of the one in a googol chance of a claim of GPL violation), they'd simply have to reformat or reconvert their non-GPL content using some other conversion method.

Again, this is so unlikely as to be beyond the realms of reasonable worry.

[user_none]

In the US the copyright must be registered with the copyright office to sue for damages. I believe that there is also a limit on the amount depending on when it was registered. Such as if it took place the day before filing the suit.