Re: GPL violation in shadow? (was: Re: Bug#244297: Still in license violation. (was: Re: Bug#244297 acknowledged by developer (Bug#244297: fixed in shadow 1:4.0.3-29)))
("kcr" dropped, 244297 added)
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> This seems like a GPL violation. The debian version of "shadow" package
> includes GPLed code from GNU su. This is allowed since shadow's license is
> 3-clausse BSD (GPL-compatible) but it looks to me that we aren't complying
> with Section 2 of the GPL which requires that the whole modified work is
> relicensed.
This is incorrect. The entire work must be available under the terms
of the GPL; parts can freely be under terms less restrictive than those
of the GPL, such as the 3-clause BSD license. If you can later extract
those parts of a work that are licensed under the more permissive license,
removing those parts that are under the GPL, then you have a work unburdened
by the terms of the GPL.
An example of this is StepMania. The project is under the permissive MIT
license. An optional component is MAD, a GPL-licensed library used for MP3
decoding. If StepMania binaries are distributed which link against MAD, they
are bound by the restrictions of the GPL, and source must be included. If
they do not, they are not; the work can be freely used proprietarily, as
long as that component is removed.
> Please could you have a look at the license references in package shadow
> (version 4.0.3-29)? I believe [shadow]/src/su.c and [shadow]/debian/copyright
> indicate that the GPL terms only apply to the parts that were originaly GPL
> and not the whole work.
This is correct. The parts that are GPL require that the entire work be
available under its terms; so if a binary (consisting of both GPL and 3-BSD
parts) is distributed, for example, the entire source must be made available
(as per the GPL), not just the GPL portions. This does not mean that all
of the parts must be under the GPL; merely that they be under compatible
terms.
> > > You added a note to the license header in src/su.c explaining that the _parts_
> > > borrowed from GNU su are licensed under the GPL. This is misleading, because
> > > in order to comply with the license terms of GNU su, you have to relicense the
> > > whole file under the GPL. Section 2 clearly states:
> > >
> > > "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole."
This statement does not back up your assertion. The requirements do apply
to the modified work as a whole, but this does not mean that every part must
be "relicensed". It means only that each parts' licensing terms must be
compatible with those of the GPL, neither imposing restrictions beyond
those of the GPL nor prohibiting the GPL's own.
I suspect replacing wholesale the license of a work you don't own--eg. using
an unmodified BSD-licensed source file, and replacing the license with the
GPL--is extremely questionable, as well. If you don't have any copyright
claim to a work, you don't have any authority to impose those extra
restrictions.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: