Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Alexander Cherepanov <email@example.com> writes
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:44:35 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman"
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.
But the law (generally) given the choice between a sensible
interpretation, and an alternative that is either ludicrous or obviously
not what was intended, will *usually* choose the sensible one.
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"?
Given that, imho, BSD doesn't permit relicencing either, yes your
recipients do get that choice.
As soon as you modify my code, they then only get GPLv3 (unless they
strip your modifications out).
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?
Bob's recipients get just GPLv3. That's all he got, that's all he can
To make it even worse, if somebody got one copy from Alice and one from
Bob, I guess technically they'd have to keep the two copies (and
associated licences) separate unless they contacted me and got my
permission to combine them!
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.
Basically, you can choose which licence you want to apply to YOU. But
you pass on my package as a whole (including my permission to choose
which licence). So that's where your recipients get the same choices you
Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-)
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.
Anthony W. Youngman - firstname.lastname@example.org