[erlang-questions] A PropEr announcement
Fri Jun 17 05:30:29 CEST 2011
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:56:59 +1000, Edmond Begumisa
> Just to clarify/reinforce, what gets a little confusing in these
> discussions are the rights and obligations between licensor and
> licensee, which is a contractual arrangement and subject to the doctrine
> of privity.
CORRECTION: This was inaccurate. A licensee agreement is not strictly
contractual agreement, but a license may be passed as consideration
exchanged as part of a contractual agreement. Nevertheless, the privy
doctrine usually applies to agreements in which licenses are past in most
> [Continuing with the mentioned hypothetical]
> * If the PropEr developers have copies of QuickCheck Mini, then they
> bind themselves to a license agreement with Quviq, including the promise
> not to reverse engineer.
> * If PropEr is GPL'ed, and Vlad uses it, he binds himself to an
> agreement with the PropEr developers, and the terms thereunder.
> Vlad is not privy to the first agreement, and thus can never be held
> liable for its breach, if there is such a breach. And he cannot be
> expected to stop using a version he already has. (Though he might have
> the rug pulled out from under him, should PropEr development cease and
> future versions stop being made.)
> However, assuming all parties are in Europe, and although the concept of
> freedom of contract generally applies, they also bind themselves
> doctrine that they can never make an agreement that contravenes codified
> EU law - including said reverse-engineering law in said copyright
> statute. Then the aggrieved party need not be privy to an agreement to
> have their rights enforced since these rights are not established by an
> agreement, but by a statute. In this case, Vlad and all PropEr users in
> Europe could well be ordered by a court to cease using the program
> regardless of any agreement they have with it's developers (since such
> an agreement would be considered invalidated.) Hypothetically speaking.
> That said: Erlang being a small-friendly community -- I assumed (and
> like to continue to a assume) that PropEr and QuickCheck developers have
> not only been aware of each others projects, but I also like to think
> that they've been in touch with each other and sorted out any such
> concerns before version 1 of PropEr was announced. Like Erlang, I prefer
> to think of the happy case!
> - Edmond -
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:23:04 +1000, Ulf Wiger
> <ulf.wiger@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On 16 Jun 2011, at 10:01, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:43, Ulf Wiger
>>> <ulf.wiger@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> On 16 Jun 2011, at 08:30, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>>>> This kind of issues are worse than flame wars! :-)
>>>> I have yet another point of view that increases the confusion: PropEr
>>>> is mostly compatible with Triq and QuickCheck (there's a free older
>>> Well, there is a version available in jungerl, but to my knowledge, it
>>> was not put there by the authors, and not actually intended to be
>>> free. Even so, one might consider it a lot less sensitive to copy that
>>> version than the later, proprietary, versions of QuickCheck.
>>> Quviq released an official mini-version last year.
>> Yes, but the QuickCheck Mini license agreement, while permitting free
>> use and re-distribution, specifically forbids reverse-engineering.
>> Thus, we should hope that the PropEr developers did not obtain a copy
>> of QuickCheck Mini and ran it in order to learn how it worked, as this
>> would put them in violation of the EU Directives regarding software
>> For those who are inspired by PropEr, but are put off by the GPL, using
>> and re-distributing QuickCheck Mini is of course unproblematic. ;-)
>> Ulf W
>> Ulf Wiger, CTO, Erlang Solutions, Ltd.
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
More information about the erlang-questions