Re: KDE not in Debian?
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how they are enforceable. The copyright holder, A, has said C can do certain
> > things, B can't change what A has permitted C to do. But in the event this is not clear
> > enough, XFree code specifically says you can sublicense XFree code, but only if you
> > include the XFree license. If that were to mean that B can change the license however B
> > wants, what would be the point of forcing B to include the XFree license? This important
> > ir not critical "condition"
> -- in fact about the only condition --
> to sublicensing is not
>
> > going to be read to mean nothing by any fair-minded reader, but your
> reading precisely
>
> > makes it mean nothing.
>
> >
>
> They may be enforceable to the extent that A has told
> B they are
>
> enforceable (by allowing sublicensing without limitation).
Enforceable by B? On what basis? The license is not a contract -- it's a license. It is a
grant of permission from an owner to do something that otherwise is prohibited. For B to be
able to enforce anything against C, there must be a right of B that C has violated. If C
violates the no-copy provision B put there and B sues C, wh
> Unless you have case law references, it's fairly useless to debate whether or
> not it's enforceable. There are valid arguments both ways (when it
> comes to unmodified works).
Well, there certainly is no case law reference that Qt is incompatible with GPL, is there? I
thought the uncertainly is what bothers Debian. Looks like at best we have thick uncertainty
here.
> > Right, but the "right" to "sublicense" is subject to the obligation to include the X
> > Copyright and the X license in the copy B distributes. Again, if the License means
> > nothing, and in fact C cannot "deal in the Software without limitation" (as the X license
> > provides), what is the point in including the license in the copy that's distributed?
> > Please explain that to me.
>
> The purpose is to indicate that party A gives you permission, not to
> say that every party with an interest has given you permission.
What interest does B have?
And, moreover, why is it relevant that A has granted this permission, if someone else took it
away and thus you in fact don't have that permission? I hardly think that providing this type
of information warrants the only condition to redistribution and copying, do you? I mean, you
really have reduced it to nothing more than, "Oh by the way, this was the original license,
though it doesn't apply to you", even though of course it doesn't say that, yet including this
meaningless phrase is, under your reading, the sole condition to copynig and redistributing the
work.
So if I am the person writing this license, I must be thinking, here's all this great code I
wrote, I want to give it away to everyone. To do that I am writing this tiny little license.
Now I will let everyone go and change the code all they want, but I won't let them change the
license, and I will make them include it in each copy! But don't worry, the license doesn't
mean anything, since anyone can change the license however they please, but I am so darned
proud of that tiny little license, I want everyone to be able to see it in its splendid glory.
Perhaps the author of this license was the tooth fairy.
> You'll notice the statement starts with "Permission is hereby granted" not "A
> license is hereby granted".
Let's not get caught up in "magic words". You don't have to say the magic word "license"
(e.g., a ticket to a movie is a "license", as is a stay in a hotel, but it does not say license
on the movie ticket or the hotel key). Bear in mind that if in fact the "permission notice" is
not a license, not even B could copy the code.
> > I don't see where it does. The fact that X license does not explicitly prohibit changing
> > the license does not imply a right to change it. The fact that the X license
> > affirmatively requires copies of the code to include the license is more than enough.
> >
> It explicitly allows sublicensing. If you can't understand this point,
> then there's not much point in continuing.
Again, there is a huge difference between allowing sublicensing, and allowing it on any terms
you see fit. Moreover, XFree requires you to include its license.
> > > 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.
> >
> > I don't agree. Where does the X license specifically grant the right to alter the
> > license? It doesn't --you "imply" this rather powerful right to sublicense under any
> > terms you want from the mere absence of an explicit prohibition against doing that, all
> > the time ignoring the purpose of the requirement that the sublicensor include the original
>
> You must have missed it:
>
> 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:
>
> I have not implied a thing: it's right there.
Of course you again omit the condition which requires you to include (sublicense using) the
XFree license.
> > license. Note, incidentally, that the X license does not require the sublicensor to
> > include the dislcaimer of warranty, only the License. Why is this so?
>
> I would guess they believe any warranty liablity will be restricted to
> the entity distributing the software.
Give me a break, they can't be that stupid.
> > The point can be stated another way. B has no right to prevent me from copying the X
> > code. B is not the copyright holder, A is. A tells B, you can copy this code and
> > distribute it, but only if you put my license on it. B does so, but adds some
> > restrictions. C gets the code from B. C sees where A, the copyright holder, the only
> > person that can prohibit copying, has said, anybody, including C, can copy the code. So
> > why would C care about B's restriction?
> >
> Because A has given B the right to add such restrictions.
So you imagine.
> > Do you really think that if C copied the code, despite B's notice that C can't, then B can
> >
> > sue C for copyright violation? Do you really think that? B can't sue for copyright
> > violation b/c B has no copyright, right? That only leaves B to sue for a license
> > violation, but a copyright license presupposes a copyright, so that won't do B any good
> > either, as B has no copyright. So on what basis could B enforce this "added
> > restriction"? (Of course, if B can't enforce it, it is not a restriction, it's wishful
> > thinking).
>
> Not for copyright infringement, no. Why do you think I've qualified my
> responses? I can't say, conclusively, that it'll be one way or another
> if/when an actual court case arises.
Well, why don't you speculate on a cause of action B might have, and we can go from there.
> > As I have mentioned before, the reason the right to sublicense is explicitly granted is
> > b/c of the contract doctrine of "privity". In order for a contract/license to be
> > effective, there has to be a direct connection between the licensor and the licensee (this
>
> This is not a reason for the sublicensing clause. It is a reason for
> the "to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated
> documentation files (the "Software")" clause.
It seems you do not understand the term "privity". The clause you quote does not create
"privity". Look up the concept (a good summary is at
http://www.gtnet.gov.uk/lawcomm/library/lc242/part-2.htm); it basically means you can't enforce
a right unless you are a party to the contract/license (or "no stranger to the consideration
could take advantage of a contract though made for his benefit"). In our example C is not a
party to the license from A to B, and in jurisdictions that require privity of contract can't
enforce it; but if B has no rights, C doesn't either (since C's rights depend on B having
rights). Therefor the privity doctrine can prevent third-parties being able to enforce their
rights (now C could always go to A, but that may be impossible if e.g. A has changed his mind
and no longer wants to license as before) If B sublicenses to C, now C is in privity of
contract with A -- there is a link between them -- and can enforce the license.
> > You cannot really license the derivative work how you want -- but you can copyright your
> > changes and license those however you want. Then, to distribute the combined work,
> > someone must comply with both licenses. However, the XFree code remains under its own
> > license.
> >
> I didn't say how you want, I said "how you want, subject to the X
> licenses (minor) restrictions." The only restriction is that you have to
> print the author's notice that he grants these permissions.
The author's notice being the author's license.
> > holder has said can be copied *by anyone* *without limitation*. Lynn, you have managed to
> >
> > turn copyright law on its head in a few clicks of the keyboard. I, for one, don't buy it.
> >
> No I have not. The copyright holder has not said that the copy you
> receive can be copied without limitation.
Yes, it has. Read the license:
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 . . .
The license is to "any person obtaining a copy of this software", how can you tell me it does
not apply to C? And again you are totally unable to explain why B, who is not a copyright
holder, can tell C he cannot copy when the copyright holder, A, has said C can.
> It says the copyright holder
> grants you these permissions, as well as having granted others permissions
> to attach terms en route to you.
Again you are contradicting the terms of the license. There is no grant of permission to
change the license. Sure, there is a grant to modify the ****code**** without limitation, but
there is no grant to modify the ****license**** without limitation. In fact, what's
interesting about the license is that it says, in essence, you can change anything you want,
but you cannot change the license. Read it carefully, and try to understand what I am saying,
there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction. See, it says you can change the Software without
restriction, but *only if* you include the license *as is*. In effect, the license is the only
thing you cannot change.
> > Yes, I do note that, read it again: "I can only [distribute the collection of works] if I
> >
> > have permission of the copyright holders of all works".
> >
> What you don't note that the license of the whole may be dictated by
> the license of a part.
I think I understand this perfectly well.
I realize now that nobody is listening to what I am saying, so I will stop wasting my time.
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: