Re: webmin license
Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> writes:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > That applies to works that have been licenses under the unamended GPL.
> > We're talking about a work which has *not* been licensed under the
> > unamended GPL. The uamended GPL has *no* force whatsoever on which
> > license terms are legal for that program.
> That document did not attempt to amend the GPL. It imposed _additional
> conditions_.
And the only sane way to interpret that is as an attempt to create a
new independent license by defining how the new license differs from
the GPL.
You have shown yourself that the alternative leads to absurdities.
> > That is irrelevant. The GPL is not in force for the program in question.
> Funny that the author says that (subject to some conditions) the program
> may be distributed under the GPL, rather than some other license.
Only after he has specified how the license he's trying to define
differs from the GPL.
> Sorry, the GPL is _very clear_ about the impermissibility of additional
> restrictions outside of its own text.
It doesn't have any say about that.
> It doesn't make any sense to say that the GPL can be casually
> amended and modified by the wave of a magic external clause when
> every ounce of the GPL is specifically designed to resist and
> contradict an attempt to do that.
That is only true for programs that are *already* under an unamended GPL.
> You may say that the author's obvious intent (or at least obvious desire)
> was to amend the GPL, which is true enough, but that doesn't save the
> program from the sin of contradiction.
Yes it does.
> If I put out a program under a self-contradictory set of requirements,
which is not the situation we're discussing.
> Perhaps a court will pick and choose which one prevails.
If a legal statement can only be interpreted in one non-absurd way,
that is the interpretation a court will pick.
> Note the capital "l" in "License". When the GPL says "this License", it is
> obviously referring to _itself_, the GPL,
Yes. But when the new license says "this License", it is obviously
referring to _itself_. Even though the words have been cut and pasted
from the GPL, their meaning comes from the context. The context of the
words is different, hence so is the meaning.
> It is easy to see that; just look at the beginning the GPL:
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
The copyright on the license text itself is only relevant when physical
copies of it are made. No physical copies of the GPL are made when a
new license is defined by its delta relative to the GPL, so the
copyiright of the license text itself are not relevant.
> So the new hypothetical "amended GPL" (on the strength of some additional
> stipulations that were imposed by an author) "applies to most of the Free
> Software Foundation's software"?
No, that is obviously one of the parts that have to be removed in
order to make it consistent with the overriding anti-Microsoft clause.
Thus, that removal is implicit in the definition.
> They thus avoid the confusing situation of having a program that
> might appear to be licensed under a hypothetical license of which
> no copies actually exist
You are right that the situation is confusing, and I personally find
the added clauses appalling. But the situation *is* legally
well-defined, and it does legally work as the author intended it to.
--
Henning Makholm "Det må være spændende at bo på en kugle. Har I nogen
side besøgt de egne, hvor folk går rundt med hovedet nedad?"
Reply to: