Re: Heart of the debate
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> I'll just finish my round of quick shots and then _really_ be gone.
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
>
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > > By contrast GPL (as I read it) simply requires that the all permissions to
> > > third parties set forth in the GPL (but not necessarily all associated
> > > restrictions) apply to all parts of the whole being distributed,
> >
> > How do you distinguish between permissions and restrictions? The GPL
> > permissions are subject to the restrictions. How do you separate them?
> >
> > > even if they are perhaps derived from a licence other than GPL (logically
> > > that licence must then be at least as permissive as GPL).
> >
> > If you read Section 2(b) to require licensing under the GPL, then it has to
> > be under the GPL, not some other license that has some more or less
> > permissions/restrictions. The concept of "GPL-compatible" comes up only if
> > you buy into the argument that Section 2 does not in fact require the added
> > source code to be licensed under the GPL, in which case I wonder what you do
> > think it means.
>
[ driving requirements example snipped ]
> In case the analogy with GPL 2b is not yet obvious: where it requires that a
> work be "licensed... to all third parties under the terms of the GPL", it
> requires that all third parties enjoy, with respect to the work, all
> permissions granted in the GPL;
That is not a plausible reading. If it does not mean "licensed under the GPL",
then you have to go through the exercise of identifying precise terms of the GPL
that do apply. I have done this in the archives, and came up only with the
"no-charge" and "distribute source code" requirements. These would be analogous
to your driving requirements. QPL satisfies these two requirements.
> it does not require that those permissions are
> derived from the GPL itself (although they could), nor that any conditions
> within the licence(s) giving those permissions be identical to those of the
> GPL, just that they suffice to allow doing what GPL allows.
But below you go further and say it can't require what the GPL does not require
(your "adult supervision" example). At this point you are left w/ a license that
has the exact same permissions, and the exact same restrictions, as the GPL; so
in fact you have the GPL, since no other license has the exact same permissions
and the exact same restrictions.
> Just in case you ask: where does it say "all permissions granted in the GPL"?,
> it doesn't. But since GPL carries the title "Terms and Conditions for Copying,
> Distribution and Modification" it is hard to imagine "licensed" in 2b to mean
> anything but "licensed for copying, distribution and modification", i.e., just
> those things GPL grants permission for.
This is a huge leap, with no basis. Even if I could agree that a document title
is somehow relevant to the interpretation of Section 2(b), the title refers to
"and conditions" and Section 2(b) does not. Moreover, Section 2(b) refers only
to distributing, not to copying and modifying. I don't see the title's
relevance.
[ ... ]
>
> > More to the point, this might be the case if "Program" in Section 2 were a
> > function parameter (and you could easily write Section 2 that way -- say by
> > having it refer to any source code distributed, rather than to the Program
> > or a work based on the Program, and then invoke Section 2 separately for a
> > modified Program). However, the term "Program" happens to be a global
> > variable defined in Section 0 and Section 2 does not make it a parameter.
>
> You'll note that in my example the recursive procedure was called GPL, not
> GPL_section_2.
I don't care about your example program. Section 3(a) of the GPL in fact
references Section 2; you really think some program you made up to try to prove a
point changes this?
[ ... ]
> > > The problem with reading the GPL this way is that it systematically uses
> > > this phrase when the rest of the GPL (or the designated part) does NOT
> > > explicitly treat the subject of "under the terms" (in some cases:
> > > explicitly not).
> >
> > It does not have to specify it explicitly; in compliance means in
> > compliance, so if you don't violate any terms, then you are doing it in
> > compliance.
>
> On the other hand your interpretation of "interest under the terms of this
> Loan Agreement" would be rather curious if the Loan Agreement never mentioned
> (apart from in this phrase) interest.
Sure. But I have identified portions of the GPL that pertain to distribution of
the complete source code -- Section 2(b)'s "no-charge" provision and Section
3(a)'s "complete source code" provision.
[ ... ]
> > You will have great problems with the first paragraph of Section 3 if you
> > read "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" to refer to the "object code or
> > executable form" (I call this a "binary" for shorthand). Even if you apply
> > only the conditions of Sections 1 and 2 to a binary (removing the predicates
> > of both sections, since both of them clearly deal with source code),
> > virtually none of the conditions makes sense as applied to a binary.
> >
> > For example, Section 1 requires a conspicuous publication of a copyright
> > notice; I don't see how you do that with a binary, since it is not human
> > readable
>
> Section 1 does not require the notice to be in the same file. 2a does, whence
> I had to skip it. Binaries should be accompanied by a copyright notice.
What does it mean to say "publish *on* each copy"? To me that's not a separate
file. But I guess if you can add and ignore words at will to suit your desired
outcome, you can interpret it that way.
[ ... ]
> > > , nor a simple "copy the text from section such and such into place here".
> > > Therefore, I can only see this as a recursive invocation of the GPL: "the
> > > same permissions granted in the GPL with respect to this Program should
> > > also be granted to all third parties (and at no cost) with respect to any
> > > work derived from this Program that are published" (2b), and "the same
> > > permissions granted in the GPL with respect to this Program should also be
> > > granted to recipients with respect to the complete sources accompanying
> > > distributed binaries" (3a).
> >
> > Well, if you read it that way, then you must also read it to mean the same
> > conditions to redistribution apply to the complete source code. The 3(a)
> > reference only has meaning through 2(b), so your reading requires you to
> > read Section 2(b) as saying, the *entire* source code must be "licensed
> > under the GPL".
>
> Not precisely. Licensed under the terms of the GPL. Not "you need a French
> driving licence" but "you need the permissions do drive required in France".
Your example is nice but has nothing to do with the GPL. It in fact says
"licensed . . . under the terms of this License", not "licensed . . . under terms
providing the same permissions [and restrictions, as you require below] as this
License". If you are free to rewrite the GPL as you see fit, I guess you can
have it mean anything.
> > As I have mentioned numerous times, this would forbid linking GPL
> > applications with X, since X is *not*, and cannot be, licensed under the
> > GPL.
>
> Nor need it. I pointed this out in
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00043.html
To which I responded at
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00046.html. Of course
you can read "under the terms of this License" to not mean what it says, but
rather to mean "granting the permissions of this License but not adding any
restrictions", but that interpretation is singularly unpersuasive. Why not have
it mean "requiring the restrictions of this License but not adding any
permissions"? That would make more sense, since the copyright holder has granted
a limited set of permissions and presumably doesn't want them amplified. But you
turn that on its head and say, the copyright holder has granted limited
permissions but is happy to allow their expansion but not their contraction. I
think what you neglect is the default, which is no right to distribute at all.
> > I would respect the position (although I disagree with it) if it were
> > consistently applied. The problem I have with Debian is, they don't apply it
> > consistently. Somehow they weed out Qt but leave X and BSD.
>
> See the driving licence example. Qt allows third parties to drive only under
> adult supervision (well not quite, but modifying only in separate files).
>
This is where suddenly your interpretation of Section 2(b) expands from "granting
the permissions of the GPL" to "granting the permissions of the GPL and not
imposing additional restrictions".
> > > > The "complete sources" is broader than a "work based on the Program". In
> > > > the case of a GPL binary with a non-GPL library, at least when
> > > > distributed statically linked, the complete source code includes the
> > > > library source code, whereas in that case the library is not a "work
> > > > based on the Program".
> > >
> > > No, but the complete sources are (note the GPL uses "complete source
> > > code", singular).
> >
> > I'm not clear on that. You are assuming that the library/Program combination
> > itself is a "work", with "work" having the meaning provided by copyright
> > law.
>
> Right.
>
> > Essentially, I take it you would agree that the if you distribute the Qt
> > sources, and you also distribute kghostview, on the same CD, those two
> > together would not constitute a "work based on" kghostview -- at this point
> > they are two separate works (although kghostview makes reference to Qt
> > functions, for copyright purposes that obviously does not make them the same
> > "work").
>
> Yes. (Although some are known to disagree, here nothing ever seems obvious.)
>
> > So the issue becomes, does the mere fact of Section 3 of the GPL requiring
> > you to distribute them together constitute them a single "work" for
> > copyright purposes (or really for any purposes).
>
> Right on the head. You must have been reading abovementioned
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00043.html
>
> > I don't believe so, but I doubt there is any relevant case law on this.
>
> Need there be? To me the logic seems inescapable. Either you are distributing
> something that is "the complete source" (not just a collection of separate
> pieces), which therefore a "whole" that is a "work based on the Program" and
> you have to abide by GPL section 2 for that distribution, or you are not, in
> which case you have no permission under section 3 to distribute the binary.
The GPL requires aggregation, it does not constitute the aggregated works as a
separate "work" in its own right. Under copyright law "work" has to do with
authorship, not with whether something is aggregated for distribution. The GPL's
requirement to aggregate the two works for distribution purposes does not
introduce any new authorship into the picture, hence there is no new "work",
hence the complete source code is not simply by virtue of Section 3(a) a "work
based on the Program".
If you disagree, a reference to the portions of the Copyright Act which support
your position would be appreciated.
[ ... ]
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: