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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

Hi Anthony!
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:44:35 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
>>> them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".

>>Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3
>>only says that they will get your grant for _this_ License, i.e. GPLv3.

> WHERE does it say that?

In section 10 (GPLv3):

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
  receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
  propagate that work, subject to this License. [...]

GPLv2 says effectively the same:

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
  Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
  original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
  these terms and conditions. [...]

> But in that case, as soon as you distribute my code using GPL2 as your
> licence, YOU have STOPPED them distributing under version 3! That
> argument cuts both ways!


> Actually, that then totally destroys the whole point of "v3 or later" if
> you choosing v3 takes away your recipients rights to choose according to
> the original author's grant!

They are always free to get the program directly from original author 
(put aside the case of a program combined from different sources for a 
moment:-). Then they have a choice of license.

Some variation of the scenario: suppose your grant is "this software 
is licensed under BSD or GPLv3" and I choose GPLv3. Does this mean 
that my recipients still get "BSD or GPLv3"?

Yet another variation: suppose you licensed your program to Alice 
under BSD and to Bob under GPLv3. Does recipients which get your 
program from Bob get "BSD or GPLv3" or just GPLv3?

> I've just checked v3, and it contains the same "gets your licence from
> the original licensor" wording as v2, so they get their grant from me,
> and you don't have the right (or ability) to change what I grant.

I hope quotes above explain what I mean.

> At the end of the day, YOU need a licence to distribute my code. My
> grant gives you a choice of v2 or v3. Whether you choose v2 or v3, your
> recipient then gets the same grant as you did, 

Sorry, I don't see where it comes from.

> and they can also choose v2 or v3. 
> If your choice of v3 took away your recipients choice of v2 I
> would consider that a VERY retrograde step.

I agree and would be happy to learn where I'm wrong.

> But at the end of the day, it's simple. If I say "v2 or v3" then I
> granted EVERY recipient of my code the right to *choose*. 

Yes, if they receive from you directly.

> Both v2 and v3
> are explicit that your recipients get their rights from ME not you, so
> your choice of v3 does not constrain their right to choose.

Alexander Cherepanov

Reply to: