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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

On Tue Dec 15 00:42, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> How do I interpret this LICENSE.txt? The Artistic License 2.0 allows
> relicensing to the GPL. I'm well and clear about that (though there's
> still a subtle question of if it allows relicensing to the LGPL).
> However, if I use clause 4(c)(ii) to switch the GPL, am I and my
> downstream users still prohibited from:
>   - distributing the software under the name JUMBO (or a derivative) 
>        ("Jumbo, Jr", "Dumbo", "Elephant" and "Timothy" all seem derivative)
>   - calling a modified version a "compliant CML system"
>   - asserting that a modified version can read and write CML?
> That is, are these clauses additions to the Artistic License 2.0 which
> must be preserved even after 4(c)(ii) relicensing to the GPL? My
> suspicion is that derivatives must still be prohibited from those
> activities.

It's interesting, the GPLv3 says explicitly:

    c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
    requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
    reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

  All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
  restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.  If the Program as you
  received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
  governed by this License along with a term that is a further
  restriction, you may remove that term.  If a license document contains
  a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
  License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
  of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
  not survive such relicensing or conveying.

Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name
under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I
don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write
his format, however. A secondary thing here, however, is that you
generally want to get on with your upstream. If you start doing things
he doesn't like, then he will make life difficult for you (see: ion3).

> Is the resulting software (with these extra limitations) free software
> enough for Debian?

Yes, there's ample example of rename clauses. Iceweasel is a
high-profile example. DFSG4 says:

   "... The license may require derived works to carry a different name
   or version number from the original software."

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: