Re: Question(s) for clarifications with respect to the LPPL discussion
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 18:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
> At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >Right. The question is "what modification rights do you have?" There's
> >good reason to believe that the "must change the file name" clause must
> >apply to derived works as well, so each time a file changes, its name
> >must change.
>
> The claim in that last sentence is certainly unproven, and the license text
> makes yours a highly unlikely interpretation.
So you say. But why should I believe you? It certainly doesn't seem
unlikely to me.
(Remember, again, that I don't care about the intent of the license. I
only care what it says.)
> The only thing it says about
> the licensing of modified files is:
>
> 7. You must distribute the modified file under a license that forbids
> distribution both of the modified file and of any files derived
> from the modified file with the filename of the original file.
>
> It forbids (requires that the licenses of the modified file and any files
> derived from that contains a clause that forbids) giving the modified file
> or any file derived from that the name of the original file, but it does
> not say anything about whether the modified file may be further modified
> without any change in its name. Had this been the intention then it would
> have been just as easy to say so, hence that is in all likelihood not how
> the text should be interpreted.
The problem is that copyright carries through to derivative works.
Thus, the assumption is that you must honor all copyright interests in a
work.
So, technically, I can apply a license as you describe to my changes.
But, the LPPL must still apply to the part that came from LaTeX, unless
the license explicitly gives permission to drop conditions. And nowhere
in the license is such permission given except specifically to
*distribution* conditions.
Also, there is no logical contradiction between my statement that
"distribution conditions are all that can change" and the above quoted
paragraph. The LPPL, for example, fulfills the above paragraph's
requirements for the new file, and it requires all kinds of modification
conditions.
> >Note that *distribution* conditions are waived (except for the filename
> >thing), but *modification* conditions are not. So, when people modify
> >files containing LPPLed work, they must honor the copyright on the part
> >with LPPLed code as well.
>
> I've told you before: you're completely misinterpreting this paragraph;
> probably because you've taken it out of context. What it means is...
Again: IF THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS, THEN WHY DOESN'T IT SAY THAT???!!!???
No one disputes that your interpretation is *possible*. The problem is
that no one has quoted me a clear quote from the license that makes my
interpretation impossible. That means that there are conflicting
interpretations. Such conflicts can only be resolved in court, after
both parties bleed a lot of money.
Specifically, I want a statement that says "modification rights may be
relaxed for modified versions of files in the Program". I don't want an
"inferred" statement, or an "assumption" that "distribution" means
"distribution and modification" - especially considering that, in other
places, "distribution" is used in a sense where it most certainly cannot
mean "distribution and modification".
> ...roughly
> that it is OK (although not free) to start a file with
>
> % pig.sty
> % Copyright 2002 M. Y. Name
> %
> % This program may be distributed and/or modified under the
> % conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License (either version 1.3
> > % of this license or (at your option) any later version), as long
> > % as you in addition pay $99 to M. Y. Name before making any
> > % modifications to this file.
> % The latest version of this LaTeX Project Public License is in
> % http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
> % and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
> % version 2002/06/01 or later.
>
> \endinput % This renders this file useless, and must be
> % removed or worked around to get some use out of this file.
>
> ... % Now do some really cool stuff
>
> since that extra condition is a _modification_ condition. It is however not
> OK to say
>
> % pig.sty
> % Copyright 2002 M. Y. Name
> %
> % This program may be distributed and/or modified under the
> % conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License (either version 1.3
> > % of this license or (at your option) any later version), as long
> > % as it is not given to Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq.
> % The latest version of this LaTeX Project Public License is in
> % http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
> % and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
> % version 2002/06/01 or later.
>
> ... % Now do some really cool stuff
So, it's your contention that I can drop the extra modification
condition if I then modify the former file (after paying the $99, of
course)? So, once I modify the file and pay up, no one else ever needs
to pay so long as they use my version? Please quote me the part of the
license that lets me do that. Such a quote would have very interesting
implications concerning the DFSG debate.
> (although it wouldn't totally surprise me if there was a US law requiring
> its citizens---and everybody else that rogue state might feel like seizing
> jurisdiction over---to include such a condition in licenses for certain
> types of software)
This isn't a license problem unless the license makes it one.
For example, a license that specifies "you must obey the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act when using this software" is probably non-free,
even though it changes nothing for people within the USA. The reason is
that the law has essentially been added into the software license, and
imposes its restrictions despite the state of the law you operate under.
(This assumes that the conditions in the DMCA, were they translated into
a software license, would make the software non-free, which seems a safe
bet to me.)
> since that is a _distribution_ condition. The paragraph
> goes on to say "We don't mind if you model your license after the LPPL, you
> may even copy most of the text verbatim, but it must not say that it is the
> LPPL or make any reference to the LPPL."
Again: you're saying that I can drop any modification conditions I like
from my derived files, as long as I keep the one about not using the
original filename?
I just don't see such a statement in the license.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: