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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

Hi Anthony!
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:34:27 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>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. [...]
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 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.

Yep, but in this case we have a unequivocal statement in the license. 
To say that what is written is obviously not what was intended, is,
well, quite a stretch IMHO.

>>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
> pass on.
> To make it even worse, if somebody got one copy from Alice and one from
> Bob, 

Yes, this is even more interesting.

> 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 don't think so. Licenses apply to works, not copies.

>>> 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
> got.

I pass your code and GPLv3, there is no requirement to pass your full 
license grant.

>>> 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.

> 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 :-)

Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-)
Let's consider it in more details: suppose I distribute your source 
code non-altered or non-creatively altered (so I don't have any 
copyright in this work) with GPLv3 attached and all references to 
other licenses (whether GPLv2 or BSD) stripped. AFAICS it's clearly 
permitted under clauses 4 and/or 5 of GPLv3.

Alexander Cherepanov

Reply to: