Not that I think there is any practical impact, but could I resell just the part of a GPL distribution that did not include the source code? If so, what license does that resold portion now fall under? Doubtless, getting a hold of the original GPL distribution should be relatively trivial, but suppose the code was tweaked and not resold? Now that may seem unlikely, but suppose a vendor added and tweaked some stuff, sold it under GPL to a "straw" reseller, who then proceeded to strip the license terms and resell without the source code?
I am not a big GPL/Open Source guy, but since Copyleft is derived from Copyright (from which software license arise) an attack on one is an attack on all...
My real issue is that while the EU court is going about invalidating licenses (regardless of their intent, and whether or not their intent is "good") unforeseen consequences may ensue.
could I resell just the part of a GPL distribution that did not include the source code?
No. GPL software is copyrighted. Law (ie not contracts, actual acts and laws) says you cannot distribute a copyrighted work unless you have permission of the copyright holder. In the case of the GPL, the copyright holder only gives you permission to distribute if you include the work under the GPL.
what license does that resold portion now fall under?
The GPL.
since Copyleft is derived from Copyright
In reality, copyleft is copyright. "Copyleft" is just a term to appear different. It is, legally, copyright, but giving people more than is commonly given (e.g. the permission to make derived works etc.)
A lot of confusion is from the mixing of copyright law and contract law. EULA-type "licences" are contract law, and you must agree to them, like a contract. The GPL, despite "licence" in it's name, is not a EULA-type licence, but merely a statement of what rights the copyright holder gives you. You do not have to click "I agree" to be bound by the GPL.
>The GPL, despite "licence" in it's name, is not a EULA-type licence //
Sorta. A EULA is also a license from a copyright [license] holder.
Resale of an item does not obviate copyright law. The creator (or successor in title or licensee) still holds the IP rights - they have only exhausted their right to control the particular copy instance that was sold. Thus a license like the GPL is still a valid part of the license of use for the copyright work.
So for the GPL it means the same as it does for other lawful licenses applied by copyright holders, very little. You can resell a GPLed work but you can't modify it and strip the GPL from it or unilaterally alter the creator's license.
In the same way the lawful terms in a EULA will still apply. You can't sell a work on to a third party and buy it back in order to somehow nullify license terms.
I don't think this ruling says 'you can ignore the license terms entirely.' In the article they said it wouldn't be legal to buy a license for five copies use four and then separately sell the fourth. You can't 'split' the license, so attempting split the GPL'd software into the source component and binary component would continue to be disallowed.
I think a better way to think about this is that the court is saying that the non-transferable clauses in software licenses are unenforceable, but the rest of the terms can be enforced.
The court isn't going about invalidating licenses, they're regulating contracts, one of the fundamental roles of courts.
So the court wouldn't allow me to sell piecemeal something I own (assuming I purchased) because a license says I have to distribute it with other things? Maybe, maybe not.
As far as the required permissive transferability of licenses goes, what parts of the license terms will the new purchaser have to meet? Since some software is sold at different prices (or has different features) to different organizations and locations through primary channels, what restrictions will apply?
Can educational copies only be resold to educational institutions? Can volume OEMs only resell to OEMs?
Since a license is a grant of use, it implies that a grant given to one can now be transferred to someone else as long as the original gives up the privileges, but without the grantor having a say. Since the license also usually spells out what the grantor grants, it forces the grantor into a new relationship.
It comes down to treating a license as a product, rather than a license; there will be impact, perhaps in how licenses are written in the future so as to have grantors disallow things, or require continuing payment for updates and support (my original contention on subscription software).
I am not a big GPL/Open Source guy, but since Copyleft is derived from Copyright (from which software license arise) an attack on one is an attack on all...
My real issue is that while the EU court is going about invalidating licenses (regardless of their intent, and whether or not their intent is "good") unforeseen consequences may ensue.
Disclaimer: I am no legal expert.