Re: request-tracker3: licence problem
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
| Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are the
| copyright holder for those contributions and you grant Best Practical
| Solutions, LLC a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free,
| perpetual, license to use, copy, create derivative works based on those
| contributions, and sublicense and distribute those contributions and
| any derivatives thereof.
While I don't see anything with this addendum that prevents it from being
DFSG-free, I personally would avoid distributing the covered software under
this license addendum. I don't see anything here that is necessary for Best
Practical Solutions, LLC (hereafter BPS). Nor do I see anything here that is
a good idea for the community. If BPS wants to hold the copyright for changes
submitted for inclusion in future releases of the program, they can negotiate
that separately with each copyright holder. I think BPS should license the
program under the unmodified GPL and separately arrange to get the copyright
for patches BPS wants to include in their fork of the program.
There are a few points that rankle:
* I still don't see any clear explanation of what BPS is trying to achieve
here (the above includes my best guess and my recommendation how to achieve that).
* Under the unmodified GPL, when BPS gets ahold of distributed modifications
to a GPL'd work BPS has irrevocable and perpetual permission to redistribute
and modify these changes without any royalty anywhere the GPL applies. Anyone
else who gets a copy of the changes has the same permission. One doesn't need
to hold the copyright to the patch to have this permission. This addendum
makes it look to me like BPS doesn't trust the rest of the GPL so BPS has to
clear some kind of special permission for itself. If this is so, perhaps BPS
will tell us what they're unclear or hesitant about so we can help address
their concerns and possibly set their minds at ease.
* This addendum attempts to license "use" of the contribution for BPS. As I
understand it, US copyright doesn't regulate mere execution (outside of
unusual circumstances) of a program. The GPL was written largely with US
copyright in mind, so I think bringing up US copyright is relevant. Even if I
wanted to contribute my code to BPS, I would not want to run the risk of
inadvertantly helping to extend US copyright's grasp. If I sign over the
copyright, there is no need to arrange for sharing, use, distribution, or
modification because BPS will have the power to license the contribution.
* BPS wants the ability to (among other things) "sublicense [...] those
contributions and any derivatives thereof.". If I make a change to Request
Tracker (a derivative work of a GPL'd work) and distribute my change, my code
will be licensed under the GPL. Thus, I cannot grant anyone or any
organization the power to sublicense my patch because that would be
inconsistent with the GPL which requires distributed derivatives to be
licensed under the GPL.
To my mind it addresses the problems raised in d-l, to whit:
* It makes clear that you have to be the copyright-holder to submit
contributions.
Which is a silly requirement unless BPS really wants to hold the copyright to
those submitted changes themselves. Again, if BPS wants that (and there are
good reasons to want the copyright to changes for their fork of the code) BPS
can negotiate that with each copyright holder. There's no need to specify
this as an addendum to the GPL. It would be beneficial so that if BPS can no
longer distribute the code only under a particular license, the copyright can
revert back to the previous copyright holder. I think the FSF does something
similar to this to prevent contributed code they now hold the copyright to
from falling into uncooperative hands should someone or some organization take
over the FSF. I imagine this condition makes it more likely that others will
want to cooperate with BPS and sign over the copyright to their changes.
* In the event of a fork, you needn't submit contributions to
BestPractical.
It's weird that this is mentioned because it comes off to me like it reveals
something new: Is BPS attempting to change this so that I must contribute
changes to them? If not, it's worth noting that under the unmodified GPL, I
don't ever have to submit contributions to BPS. If so, I don't see how the
new addendum accomplishes that (and such a change would make this license
inconsistent and GPL-incompatible).
Reply to: