Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Feb 17, Andreas Pour wrote:
> [...]
> > > I don't see why, after you've gone to such pains to establish that the
> > > on a module license doesn't change when a module is linked with a GPLed
> > > program. Why have you decided that this is a necessary step for this
> > > case?
> >
> > B/c the LGPL says so. It says you can change the license to GPL,
> > but then it is no longer under the LGPL. Now you want to have it
> > both ways. However, the LGPL prohibits it.
>
> Apparently you can't read and/or comprehend English.
That's obvious, isn't it? I can't speak or write it, either.
> I mailed this
> morning that just because something is put under the GPL once, that
> does not necessarily mean that everyone else has to use it under the
> GPL too. Your ignorance of this fact (and your not challenging it)
> imply that all you're doing is trolling.
Let's test my English comprehension, shall we? A good place to start is the
actual LGPL language, wouldn't you agree? Section 3 states:
Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General
Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do
this, you
must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer
to the
ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2 instead of to this License.
(If
a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License
has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do
not
make any other change in these notices.
Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
copy, so the
ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and
derivative works made from that copy.
This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the
Library into
a program that is not a library.
Now, let's look at it sentence by sentence, so even I can comprehend it.
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.
OK, so this means I can use the GPL with the LGPL-licensed code, like libc.
To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
that
they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2 instead
of to this License.
OK, so I must change *all* the notices that refer to the LGPL to refer to the
GPL. That means there no longer is *any* notice that the library is licensed
under the LGPL; each notice refers to the GPL. It's not like the Perl
license, which says you can apply either Artistic or GPL (or in this case
LGPL or GPL); no, the only license referred to is now the GPL.
The next sentence is not relevant to my point.
Do not make any other change in these notices.
OK, I cannot change the notices in any other way. That means I cannot, for
example, add a new notice that refers to the LGPL.
Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
copy, so the
ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and
derivative works made from that copy.
Now look. My change is "irreversible". Now the GPL applies to *all*
subsequent copies and derivative works thereof. Notably, the LGPL does not
apply to it. If both licenses were to apply to it, it would say something
like,
Please show my where I made my reading and comprehension errors, kind teacher.
> Besides which, this is irrelevant to your example of grep+libc, since
> in linking grep with libc you don't modify any of libc's code, nor do
> you patch libc with code that would make it come under the GPL.
First of all, as I have pointed out, libc does in fact *contain* GPL code --
namely, libio. Secondly, the point is quite relevant to some people's
arguments (of which you may or may not be one, I don't know). Some people
have argued that Section 2(b) requires that when you link GPL'd code with a
library, then that library *must* be licensed under the GPL (the argument is
based on Section 3(a) requiring the "complete source code" to an executable to
be distributed under the terms of Section 2). Since grep is GPL'd, and it
links with libc, the obvious conclusion, for those who make the argument, is
that libc must be licensed under the GPL.
> The LGPL permits you to make derivative works of the library under
> either the GPL or the LGPL. That does not mean that once you do this
> (which we haven't anyway), you can never make another derivative work
> under the LGPL
Have you, perchance, read the LGPL? Or does your superior knowledge of
English reading and comprehension permit you to dispense with such
formalities?
> , or even that you have to treat the original under the
> GPL for ever and in eternity (which is what you seem to imply in this
> paragraph).
Perhaps my English problems are causing me to misunderstand the term
"irreversible" in the LGPL. Could you kindly explain to me what that means?
[ childish flames snipped ]
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: