GPL compatibility of DFCL
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
> Actually, it would only "suspend" it.
How could this possibly work? If I get a work under the GPL, how can
some other license possibly take away my GPL permission to modify and
distribute the work?
> The idea being that you can't take a DFCL-licensed work, cram it into a
> piece of software, and then suck it back out into a data file without
> having to restore the Endorsements section.
I'd love to hear proposed language for this. At first blush, I don't see
ANY way to do this that doesn't leave it easy to turn the license into
pure GPL.
> However, as long as the DFCLed work "lived" within a GPLed work,
> reproduction of the endorsement clause would not be required (remember,
> the endorsements themselves are *never* required).
At the very least, I can relase a 1-line GPL program whose source I append
to the work, keeping it GPL. It seems possible that I could just claim
that my copy of the work is a derivative of the GPL program I took it out
of and therefore still is distributable itself under the GPL.
> Contrary to popular belief, the GPL does not change the copyright on
> anything. It merely requires that you not impose restrictions beyond
> its own terms.
Right. Like saying that a derivative of the software (with everything but
the work in question removed) cannot be distributed under the GPL.
> The point of my tangent is this: we don't *need* statements like
> "Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> without specific prior written permission." in our licenses.
Aren't we then back to "we don't need a new content license." Any free
software license works UNLESS you need a (positive or negative)
advertising clause. (as long as you define software to be "a sequence of
bytes")
Unfortunately, there is a perception among people who are generating
"free" content that they DO need such a statement.
> So, with all that said, why am I in favor of an Endorsements section?
> Because it seems to be something that authors want.
As you say.
> We *could* go a route that only precludes and disavows endorsements,
> e.g.,
>
> Copyright (C) 200 Foo Bar
>
> This work may be freely copied, modified and distributed under
> the terms of the Debian Free Content License. The contents of
> this work are not necessarily the responsibility of the
> copyright holder(s) and do not necessarily represent the views
> of the copyright holder(s).
I like it a lot. But then I like pure GPL, X, or my favorite
license of all time "This work is public domain".
> *However*, I think we could make the DFCL more appealing to
> authors if we did actually permit the inclusion of endorsements.
Is there a way to gather some feedback from a sample of authors who we
hope will use this license? As I think more and more about this, It seems
unlikely that those who don't want as much freedom as pure GPL would give
their users would be satisfied with just endorsements. But maybe I'm
wrong, so it seems worth a try.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: