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

Re: mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)...

On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 06:01  am, Branden Robinson wrote:

Branden, I think you're off-the-mark here. There is nothing to stop an
author making a statement that "You may copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in combination with the following extra
conditions, which shall override the GPL in cases of conflict".

In that case, the work is not effectively licensed under the GPL.  It
licensed under something like the GPL minus (or plus) some terms.  The
result may or may not be DFSG-free.


I stand by my statement.

"those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work under
the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void."

...because it's not the GPL anymore.  It's a something-else license.

If we agree above, then I think that statement is misleading; it would imply that
the GPL as overridden by the "something else" is void.

On the second point, of course I agree that *overall*, it's not the GPL any more
and should not be described as such.

If I dual-license my work, and use one license to claim that the other
license doesn't really apply, then I don't have two licenses, I have
one.  Or, depending on how you want to think about it, I still have two
licenses, but neither of them are the GNU GPL.

At this point I don't even want to start thinking about dual-licensing. Particularly
not if each claims to supersede all others... ;)

There is nothing invalid about this, as far as I can see.

Not invalid, but it doesn't make sense to pretend that such things are
licensed under the GNU GPL, because they aren't, despite the appearance
of the GNU GPL's license text.

Agreed; it's the 'not invalid' that is important to me at this point.

This is clearly what is intended in most of the cases we have seen of people
saying "GPL but...".



Where's the problem? It's not what the GPL was intended for, and it's not what you'd like to see it used for (hell, most of the time it's not what I'd like to see it used for, either), but I don't believe we do ourselves any
favours by pretending

What is self-delusional about my statement? What more would you care to
read into my words?

Not your statement then, clearly. Just those of several people who have evidently
misinterpreted your original statement as described above.

that it doesn't make any sense,

It may not make sense.  The GPL could be effectively modified such that
the resulting license is nonsense.

Agreed again; so could anything else. It's just not implicit in the situation described,
which is the conclusion that often seems to be (erroneously) reached.

that it's invalid,

It may be invalid.  The GPL could be effectively modified such that the
resulting license is unenforceable or impossible to comply with.

As above.

or that we can't make out what the author intended.

It may be that we cannot make out what the author intended.  The
author's other statements regarding licensing may result in a logical

Again possible, but not implicit.

When we come up against one of these cases we should say "Is this what you intended? Thought so... we don't like this because X. Would you be willing to change it? Even if not, we think you'd do well to clarify what you mean as
follows..." rather than mumbling on about the author being some kind
of fuckwit who clearly doesn't grok the GPL, copyright law, our principles
or whatever.

I am disinterested in having a discussion with you if you're going to
put words in my mouth.  I'm sorry that you appear to be deeply offended
by the paragraph that Glenn Maynard quoted, but it doesn't say the
things you're accusing it of saying.  I suspect you are letting your
emotions get the better of you.

Sorry, this part of my original mail was no longer directed at you in particular or indeed necessarily at all; I should probably have made that clear to start with.

What precisely would be the problem with that?

You are presenting a false alternative.  Observing that a work is not
licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License in no way
renders impossible a friendly approach to an author to clarify what
licensing terms are intended.

OK, I'd just like to be sure that we are being as straightforward as possible
about these things, and not misleading authors.

Maybe the best approach to people trying to do this kind of thing with the GPL would be to say something like "lots of people get confused when you start trying
to add conditions around the GPL, so we'd suggest you don't do it..." ;)

If someone feels insulted that another person notices that their work
isn't really under licensed under the GNU GPL, well, that's their

That's probably not their only problem in that case ;)



Reply to: