Glitched the editability of a post by using quote-boxes with names in them

[Delicieuxz]

 

Using the latest version of Chrome. The post, replacing square brackets with curly brackets:

 

 

{quote=poiuz}{quote=Delicieuxz}What property is and what taking another person's property is are things that are defined in law. And once an item passes its first-sale (don't know if that applies in this situation or not) then the seller no longer holds any authority over that item. Software licenses are also a property, and a seller or former possessor of a software license has no legal right to do anything to another person's software license once they have given it to someone else.

 

{/quote} Question: How are then OpenSource licenses supposed to work, e.g. GPLv3?

{quote}You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).{/quote}{/quote}

 

Lots of things about digital licenses are personal inventions with no real-world applicability - that is to say that lots of things about digital licenses are not based in law, have never undergone legal scrutiny in a court, and frequently are outright contradicted by laws.

 

I don't know about GPLv3, other than to say that it doesn't involve an item which was traded for money, and so the first-sale doctrine doesn't automatically apply.

 

But, any digital license should be read with the understanding that a fantasy cult has been built around digital licensing, where those who write them regularly do so from a misguided assumption that because digital items are not physical items that just automatically means that a publisher of a digital license is its god to dictate everything concerning that item's future usage. In reality, property is counted in law as both tangible (physical items) and intangible (non-physical items - bonds, stocks, licenses, patents, etc) and the same rules generally apply to both of them: If you give something to somebody, you've given that item to that person and so it is no longer yours to make any claims regarding.

 

https://www.superbrokers.ca/library/glossary/terms/intangible_property.php

 

An Intellectual Property is an intangible property, and so is a license granted to make use of an IP via a non-reproduceable instance (such as software) of it - but they are distinct intangible properties. While a publisher hands out the right to use their IP when it grants a license, they don't hand away the IP itself and so the right to reproduce copies of their IP for distribution remains with the IP holder.

 

So, the GPLv3 wording sounds valid when it says "Any attempt otherwise to propagate... it is void". However, the claim of "Any attempt otherwise to... modify it is void" doesn't sound like it is true, to me. And, I wonder how  the part that says "... and will automatically terminate your rights under this License" regarding a modified personal instance could be enforced. I don't think it could be.

 

The GPLv3 wording sounds to me like it's trying to prevent people from duplicating a licensed work and also from trying to get around that restriction by modifying it and distributing it then as their own work. But, prevention of distribution of modified copies is already accomplished in saying that people may not distribute the work because a distributed modified copy still counts as a distributed copy of the original work in copyright law. So, saying anything about modifying it is redundant.

 

The GPLv3 wording seems redundant and unrefined to me and, like any claim, is ignorable to the extent that it is invalid before law. And, I think that the parts beyond claiming that people may not distribute duplicates of the digital item are fluff. If the GPLv3 wording is trying to make it clear to the public that modified copies still count as original copies, then it can be worded better.

 

Many publishers write digital licenses knowing that they don't count for much beyond their psychological influence to invoke or prevent certain end-user behaviours - which is something publishers still consider to be valuable.

 

 

 

 

The published result:

 

Quote

Quote

What property is and what taking another person's property is are things that are defined in law. And once an item passes its first-sale (don't know if that applies in this situation or not) then the seller no longer holds any authority over that item. Software licenses are also a property, and a seller or former possessor of a software license has no legal right to do anything to another person's software license once they have given it to someone else.

 

Question: How are then OpenSource licenses supposed to work, e.g. GPLv3?:

 

Quote

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

 

Lots of things about digital licenses are personal inventions with no real-world applicability - that is to say that lots of things about digital licenses are not based in law, have never undergone legal scrutiny in a court, and frequently are outright contradicted by laws.

 

I don't know about GPLv3, other than to say that it doesn't involve an item which was traded for money, and so the first-sale doctrine doesn't automatically apply.

 

But, any digital license should be read with the understanding that a fantasy cult has been built around digital licensing, where those who write them regularly do so from a misguided assumption that because digital items are not physical items that just automatically means that a publisher of a digital license is its god to dictate everything concerning that item's future usage. In reality, property is counted in law as both tangible (physical items) and intangible (non-physical items - bonds, stocks, licenses, patents, etc) and the same rules generally apply to both of them: If you give something to somebody, you've given that item to that person and so it is no longer yours to make any claims regarding.

 

https://www.superbrokers.ca/library/glossary/terms/intangible_property.php

 

An Intellectual Property is an intangible property, and so is a license granted to make use of an IP via a non-reproduceable instance (such as software) of it - but they are distinct intangible properties. While a publisher hands out the right to use their IP when it grants a license, they don't hand away the IP itself and so the right to reproduce copies of their IP for distribution remains with the IP holder.

 

So, the GPLv3 wording sounds valid when it says "Any attempt otherwise to propagate... it is void". However, the claim of "Any attempt otherwise to... modify it is void" doesn't sound like it is true, to me. And, I wonder how  the part that says "... and will automatically terminate your rights under this License" regarding a modified personal instance could be enforced. I don't think it could be.

 

The GPLv3 wording sounds to me like it's trying to prevent people from duplicating a licensed work and also from trying to get around that restriction by modifying it and distributing it then as their own work. But, prevention of distribution of modified copies is already accomplished in saying that people may not distribute the work because a distributed modified copy still counts as a distributed copy of the original work in copyright law. So, saying anything about modifying it is redundant.

 

The GPLv3 wording seems redundant and unrefined to me and, like any claim, is ignorable to the extent that it is invalid before law. And, I think that the parts beyond claiming that people may not distribute duplicates of the digital item are fluff. If the GPLv3 wording is trying to make it clear to the public that modified copies still count as original copies, then it can be worded better.

 

Many publishers write digital licenses knowing that they don't count for much beyond their psychological influence to invoke or prevent certain end-user behaviours - which is something publishers still consider to be valuable.

 

[Delicieuxz]

 

What happens is that all text and space underneath this part of the quote box:

Quote

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

 

... cannot be selected or edited. It's like a flat wall or blank page that can't be interacted with in the editor.

 

However, this quote box:

Quote

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

 

... and everything above it can be selected and worked with in the editor.

[ARikozuM]

Well... Two things to note:

 

1) @Delicieuxz is a white-hat,

2) it's the weekend and I'm still being lectured into learning. 

[colonel_mortis]

Unfortunately BBCode is no longer maintained by the forum software devs, so any issues like this won't be fixed. I don't think BBCode names on quotes works anyway, so you shouldn't lose much by not using that feature.