Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
> > The BSD license doesn't forbid the restrictions of the GPL.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 02:33:34PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It doesn't allow them either.
It does allow these restrictions in the same way that it allows for
BSD code to be distributed under proprietary and commercial licenses:
A license grants rights. The restrictions of the GPL represent a lack
of granting of rights.
The GPL is rather unique in that it requires that the rights it grants
be passed on to others. The BSD has no such clause.
This is the reason you can have propritary, commercial BSD licensed code:
the BSD license does not require that the rights it grants be passed on
to anyone else.
Since the BSD license makes no requirement that rights be passed on to
others, it does indeed allow the restrictions of the GPL.
> By default, under copyright law, you are not allowed to re-license
> or redistribute. A permissive license changes that. However, you are
> limited to the enumerated permissions. BSD says you can modify and
> redistribute in source or binary form, it does not say you can change
> the license; hence it is not permitted.
I don't know why you think that the BSD license is being changed.
What's really happening is that the BSD licensed material is being
incorporated in a larger work which does not grant all the rights that
the BSD license grants. [In particular, the GPL does not grant the
right to redistribute software if the GPL rights aren't available to
all third parties.]
> > > I'm not sure what 201(c) adds to that.
> >
> > 201(c), in contrast, shows that you can have multiple copyrights on
> > the same work. You've claimed that this is illegal, but 201(c) shows
> > otherwise.
>
> As they say in New York, "Put up or shut up". Show me where I claim
> "multiple copyrights in the same work" are "illegal". You are again
> reverting to claiming I have said things I never said, something which
> you repeatedly did last year when we were debating this same issue.
This statement makes no sense to me unless I presume that you're saying
that there is some legal problem with having the GPL and the XFree
licenses on the same work:
> More to the point, if the entire source code were a "Program",
> Debian could not distribute the Gimp, Gnome or any of the other
> X-linked apps which Debian distributes either, since XFree is *not*
> licensed under the GPL (and for that matter libc is *not* licensed
> under the GPL -- sure it has a conversion provision in Section 3
> of the LGPL, but that only applies if you change the header files
> -- has Debian done this???? or is that an "acceptable" technical
> violation of extremely clear requirements in the LGPL???). But I
> guess consistency in interpretation does not matter when you take
> the moral high ground . . . ..
> > > If I can take the liberty to quote from your prior e-mail, starting with my
> > > paragraph:
> >
> > > > > More to the point, if the entire source code were a "Program",
> > > > > Debian could not distribute the Gimp, Gnome or any of the other
> > > > > X-linked apps which Debian distributes either, since XFree is
> > > > > *not* licensed under the GPL (and for that matter libc is *not*
> > > > > licensed under the GPL -- sure it has a conversion provision
> > > > > in Section 3 of the LGPL, but that only applies if you change
> > > > > the header files -- has Debian done this???? or is that an
> > > > > "acceptable" technical violation of extremely clear requirements
> > > > > in the LGPL???). But I guess consistency in interpretation does
> > > > > not matter when you take the moral high ground
> > > > > . . . ..
> > > >
> > > > This indicates a very serious failure to understand copyright law.
> > > >
> > > > Please read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html, particularly
> > > > section (c).
> > > >
> > > > The essential point here is that it is possible to own the copyright
> > > > on a collective work even though someone else owns the copyright on
> > > > components of that work.
> >
> > > It is obvious to me that you can have a separate copyright in a collective
> > > work, as well as in a compilation. Perhaps you can spell out in detail how
> > > 201(c) is relevant to the point I was making.
> >
> > You claim that '.. if the entire source code were a "Program", Debian
> > could not distribute the Gimp, Gnome or any .. X-linked apps.. since XFree is *not
> > licensed under the GPL..'
> >
> > 201(c) states 'Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective
> > work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole...'
>
> Of course it is. But I thought we were talking about licenses here.
Licenses granting copyright, yes.
This statement of yours only makes sense to me if I imagine that you think we
were not talking about copyright licenses.
> > In this case the Gimp is an example of a "Program" which is a GPL licensed
> > collective work containing GPLed material and X licensed material.
>
> So now you admit that the X code remains under the XFree license? Well, until the
> next e-mail, I guess.
Both licenses apply. The XFree license only applies to the XFree portion
of the code. The GPL applies to the work as a collective whole, and
the GPL applies to those portions which are solely licensed under the GPL.
If one license grants some copy rights which the other license does not
grant then the more restrictive license takes precedence. Since the
GPL is the most restrictive license, it always takes precedence.
> [ ... ]
>
> > > The starting point is this. You claim that when someone links Qt to
> > > kghostview it becomes one "Program" which must be licensed under the
> > > GPL in its entirety. I said, if that's the case, it's also true with
> > > Gimp/X. Then I said, that's a problem b/c X is not licensed under the
> > > GPL, just like Qt is not. You then respond to that by quoting Section
> > > 201(c). The connection completely escapes me. How does Section 201(c)
> > > distinguish between Qt and X?
> >
> > 201(c) applies equally to works which include Qt and works which
> > include X.
> >
> > However, the X license does not impose any more restrictions on the
> > collective work than the GPL does. The QPL license does. Under section 6
> > of the GPL, this means that it's not legal to distribute GPLed code which
> > incorporates QPL licensed code.
>
> Section 6 doesn't say anything of the sort. You apparently agreed yesterday that Qt
> was neither a "Program" nor a "work based on a Program". If that is the case, then
> Section 6 does not apply to Qt.
Not when considered as an independent entity.
However, when Qt is a part of the collective work kghostscript then Qt is a
part of that Program.
> If Qt is a "Program", then so would be X. You will note from Section
> 0 that accordingly X would have to be licensed under the GPL; if not,
> it's not a Program. But you just (apparently) agreed above that X is
> not licensed under the GPL.
It is statements like this which make me believe that you do not
understand collective copyrights.
I did not agree that X is not licensed under the GPL. I did agree that
X is licensed under XFree. I don't know why you have a problem with this.
I imagine that the problem is that you do not understand collective
copyrights, but you claim that you have no problems with them.
> > The X license doesn't pose this problem.
>
> I can see that debating with you is futile. You are far too
> inconsistent. Feel free to respond, and have the last word, but I am
> done debating with you.
Er.. I've seen you make this kind of statment a number of times in
the past.
But I must grant that, so far, you have been fairly consistent in your
interpretation of these declarations of yours.
--
Raul
Reply to: