On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > They do not limit my right under the license to chop up a GPL program > > and only reuse parts of it, so long as my use complies with the terms > > of the GPL -- EVEN IF a part that I'm using is a proper subset of a > > work that was originally licensed under the DFCL. > Incorrect. > You can chop up a work which is copyrighted and licensed under the terms > of the GPL as much as you want. When you are distributing a > conglomerate work which contains bits licensed under the GPL and bits > that are NOT licensed under the GPL but are instead DISTRIBUTED UNDER > THE TERMS OF the GPL, you need to be more careful. When you remove all > of the "viral" GPLed code, you may end up with something that is NOT > UNDER THE GPL. This is because the GNU GPL *cannot abrogate the right > of the copyright holder to license his work as he sees fit*. > If someone aggregates my MITed work into a GPLed whole, and then someone > else takes my MITed work back out, my work *remains under the MIT > license*. *It is not licensed under the GNU GPL*. This is NOT the same > thing as *permitting distribution under the terms of the GPL*. If it > were, then all MITed and BSDed work would become copylefted -- for > everyone in the world -- as soon as someone combined that work with a > GPLed one. The BSDs, the XFree86 Project, and (reportedly) Microsoft > would thus suddenly become candidates for lawsuits by the FSF for GPL > violations -- all one has to do is combine something with GNU Emacs, and > bang. This, then, is the point that we disagree on. I understand "distributed under the terms of the GPL" to mean that ALL the terms of the GPL apply to the work as distributed, including section 2 granting third parties permission to modify the work and distribute modified versions of the work, without restriction on the KINDS of modifications I can make, so long as I comply with paragraphs a) through c) of section 2. (I maintain that the explanation at the end of section 2 has no power to remove a third party's permission to use portions of a work under the terms of the GPL if that work was distributed under the terms of the GPL.) > > If I'm using part of a GPL work, I shouldn't have to worry about its > > genealogy before being able to use it. > I am sorry, but I am afraid you do. Read all copyright notices. Though you may be correct that this interpretation would be upheld in court, I believe such an interpretation is contrary to the spirit of the GPL; and as such, if it /is/ correct, a bug report against the GPL would be in order. Even reading copyright notices is not guaranteed to give you a clear indication of the origins of each piece of the GPL composite, so people would be exposed to legal liability if they misjudge the lines between a DFCL work and the incorporating GPL work when creating derivative works. Then again, section 2 does say "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program..." Perhaps if I can't identify it as being entirely of DFCL origin, I'm free to distribute it under the GPL? Then, as with US patent law, my best defense might be to remain ignorant. > > An escape clause such as the one you're proposing would be a very > > serious flaw in the GPL; > I disagree. Free but non-copylefted works reside in the GPL commons > only as long as they are needed by GPLed works. Depending on how you look at it, there are two "fences" around the commons: there is an inner fence within which lies all material which can *only* be used in works distributed under the GPL, and there is an outer fence within which lies all material which can *optionally* be distributed under the GPL. Three-clause BSD is unquestionably within the outer fence; so long as I preserve the copyright notice (etc.), I can do anything I want to with BSD code, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTING IT UNDER THE GPL, whether or not I've modified it. Copyright law prevents me from claiming the work is my own, but the BSD license does allow me to sublicense the work under any other license I want (including copyleft). The proposed DFCL, if it falls within this outer fence of the GPL commons, is the only license that imposes restrictions on licensees when used in the wild that the GPL itself does not. > These discussions have prompted me to tweak the language just a bit for > more clarity, however: > When this work is incorporated into a different work that is > ^^^^ ^^^^ > licensed under the GNU GPL, version 2, as published by the Free > Software Foundation, reproduction of the endorsement section > ^ > immediately after this work's copyright notice is optional > instead of mandatory when those notices appear as part of the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > work licensed under the GNU GPL. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (changes noted) > The intent is to lift the endorsement clause restriction only in the > context of combination with a GPLed work, not for the whole world. So the endorsements don't go away when the document is incorporated into a GPLed work and come back when it's taken out of that work, they're merely moved around within the work. Well, I'm not sure if this is better or not, though I'm inclined to believe that it should be. I think with this latest clarification, I've reached the end of what my layman's understanding allows me to form an opinion on. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpzAFNJMdf1s.pgp
Description: PGP signature