Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
> > Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
> > listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
>
> > derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it
> > preserves the copyright notice) under the sublicensing permission.
>
> The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any copies you
> redistribute. I suppose you might argue there is no reason for that and we can
> safely ignore that rather critical condition. In that case it is you that appears
> not to listen.
>
No. I'm saying the X license allows other interests to be attached in
the form of licenses, and the X copyright notice only notifies you of
their (the copyright holder's) permissions.
> Wrong, it says you need to include the notice with any "substantial portion" of the
> code. Notice that this license applies to each *file*, not the entire XFree build
> tree. So including any substantial portion of any file (however much that is),
> requires you to include their license. And since Debian redistributes basically all
> of their files untouched, there is no question that Debian has to include the XFree
> copyright notice and the XFree license (which is referred to as the "permission
> notice").
>
The notice has to go in. However, the original authors cannot give
permissions for modifications of the code - they don't have the sole
copyright interest in derivative works. The copyright notice also does
not claim it is the sole license for the code.
For example, author A distributes his work W to person B. Now B gives
a copy to C with a license that has additional restrictions X, Y, and Z.
Now, the X license gives the permission of A for person C to exercise the
rights of the copyright monopoly. That, however, does not invalidate the
additional restrictions B has placed on the license for the copy. Only B
can waive those restrictions. I don't see anywhere in the X license
claiming that it contains the sole terms of the license to C. Quite the
opposite in fact ("... including without restriction the rights to ...
sublicense ...").
While I don't know whether a court would enforce such restrictions on
the unmodified code without the intervention of the author, the X license
certainly allows such additional restrictions.
Here's an example of how such a sublicense might appear:
--------------------
You may not copy, modify, or distribute this software.
XYZ Software Co.
Copyright (C) 1996 X Consortium
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
the rights to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the
Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE
FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF
CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not
be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the X
Consortium.
X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.
-------------
There is no contradiction. X grants you their permission, XYZ denies
you theirs, as is their right under the X license. This sublicense won't
apply to other copies you get (unless they carry the same sublicense, of
course).
> > It doesn't invalidate any
> > other agreements you may entered regarding the code. It also doesn't
> > invalidate different licenses on derivative works, particularly those with
> > sufficient copyrightable content to be protectable.
>
> No it does not, and I have never claimed it does.You can license additions to XFree
> code under your own license, and when someone distributes the combined work they have
> to comply with the XFree license and your license. The XFree code, however, at all
> times remains under the XFree license.
No, the permissions explicitly allow you to attach a license to the
unmodified code. You can enter agreements with respect to that code,
completely unmodified. You can license the whole of any derivative work
you create as you want (subject to the minor conditions of the X license).
The X license allows you to add as many restrictions as you like to a
work, modified or not, but I stop short of saying that since it's hard to
tell if a court would enforce such a sublicensing if the plaintiff has no
direct copyright interest in the work. For derivative works or cases
where you enter into a contract, the added restrictions are going to have
more weight.
> > Furthermore, it is
> > perfectly legal to distribute the exact same expression under multiple
> > copyright licenses.
>
> For the author, sure. For a recipient under a particular license, absolutely not.
> Otherwise I could take my MS Word and distribute it under the GPL, couldn't I?
>
No, but MS Word isn't accompanied with a copyright license that allows
you to do so. XFree86 _is_ accompanied by such a license.
> > I don't have to "re-license" all currently existing
> > versions of the code to comply with the GPL on a version that includes or
> > is derivative of some GPL'ed work. I only have to distribute that version
> > under the GPL.
>
> What does that mean? You can't distribute any version of the XFree code (i.e., if
> you copy a "substantial portion" of it) under the GPL, it remains under the XFree
> code license.
>
Well, that's what's under dispute, isn't it?
It means the license that
accompanies one copy of a work has no effect on a license that accompanies
a second copy of the very same work.
> > If you insist on continuing to debate what many of us consider obvious
> > (e.g. that X licensed code may be redistributed under a proprietary
> > license) then it would be best for you to post (in a relatively short way)
> > your basic assumptions that are leading you to your conclusions. My wager
> > is that we'll disagree with one of your assumptions, so maybe we'll get
> > somewhere more fruitful (no guarantees though).
>
> Well:
> (a) copyright law prevents copying of protected works without permission from the
> copyright holder;
True.
> (b) that permission to copy can be given in a document, whether it is called a
> "license" or a "permission notice" or whatever, so long as in substance it permits
> copying;
True.
> (c) if someone grants such permission, you can only copy in compliance with the
> grant of permission;
True but incomplete - there may be other conditions attached besides
the original granter's permission.
[deletia - mostly steps in an attempt at a proof, rather than assumptions]
> (i) Point (h) above does not, however, change the license of the XFree code, it
> only changes the permissions on the combined code. This is much like if I distirbute
> a CD containing The Star Spangled Banner and music from Brittany Spears and Ricky
> Martin. I can only do it if I have permission of the copyright holders of all works
> (even though one work may be in the public domain and the others not), and, moreover,
> the restrictive license on the BS and RM works does not place a restrictive license
> on The Star Spangled Banner, which remains in the public domain.
>
The first sentence is false. Further, while your example is true, what
you don't note is that the license on the BS can require a restrictive
license on the CD as a whole (for that matter, a recording of a PD work
still has its own copyright protection). You may, of course, obtain the
individual works from a different source under a different license, in
which case you'd have different rights with respect to that copy.
Lynn
Reply to: