[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FilterProxy and DFSG

Richard Braakman [dark@xs4all.nl] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:37:40PM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> > Could you clarify this for me?  How is a usage restriction in violation
> > of the GPL?  How does this preclude me from including code from other
> > GPL projects?  Can you point me to the appropriate part of the GPL that
> > mentions this?
> > 
> > For reference, the license is here:
> >     http://draal.physics.wisc.edu/FilterProxy/LICENSE
> GPL section 6, when talking about distributing the program, says
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein."

I'll go ahead and argue that unrestraind usage is not a "right granted"
within the GPL.

> This would forbid you from applying FreeProxy's usage restrictions
> (defined by your LICENSE) to someone else's GPL'd code, when you
> distribute that code as part of FreeProxy.
> I realize that you can make an argument that the GPL does not
> grant any usage rights in the first place.  But it specifically
> says in section 0, "The act of running the program is not restricted."
> It gets complicated, so I'll let you make your own arguments :-)

Shouldn't that sentence read:
    The act of running the program is not restricted [by this license]
as, indeed, usage is not restricted by the GPL itself.  It does not say
that "The act of running the program MUST NOT be restricted".

At any rate, as you say, I'm making the argument that the GPL does not
grant usage rights in the first place...if anyone can argue this
definitively one way or the other, I'd like to hear it.

> Also, your LICENSE file states that its terms take precedence over
> the GPL in case of conflict, which cannot be true if you include
> someone else's GPL'd code.

True...fortunately it's all my own code...

I can remove that clause, as long as I'm sure they don't conflict!  ;)

> The next statement, "Any work derived from FilterProxy must include
> this License in addition to the GPL", would also be a "further
> restriction" under section 6.  

Again, if usage is not a right "granted herein", then requiring the
secondary license is not a restriction on those rights.  

> Hmm, and it contradicts the second sentence of your own License --
> creating a derived work is an issue of modification and distribution,
> which you delegate to the GPL.  I'm not sure what effect that should
> have on interpretation.

The act of copying the secondary license becomes part of the act of
copying the software, so in that sense it is a "restriction".  But I
think that's stretching it a bit.  (Is this what you meant?)  Is
requring one extra document to propegate with derived works a
"restriction", when that document has nothing to do with the rights
granted in the GPL?  For the purpose of the GPL, is the GPL itself
considered part of the software, or separate?  Does the GPL fall under
the GPL?  Likewise, is any other license part of the software itself?

Not trying to be argumentative here...just trying to figure this all

-- Bob

Bob McElrath (rsmcelrath@students.wisc.edu) 
Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics

Attachment: pgpaWnlCakSI6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: