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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

Hi Anthony!
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:48 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> 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.

> In which case, you HAVE altered my work. You've removed part of it, 
> namely the licence grant.

Not necessarily but for simplicity let's consider the case when yes, I 
have altered you work.

> Oh - and that probably is a very definite copyright violation :-) 

Please provide relevant quotes.

> I didn't grant you a licence to do that, 

Sure you did, it's called GPLv3.

> I granted you a licence to alter the program :-)

You take the position that the program != the work? I'm suprised.

> And as someone else in this thread said, if they get one copy via one 
> route that is GPL, and another via another route that is BSD, they think 
> they can apply either licence to either copy. This is a very vague area.

The copyright covers works, not copies. Accordingly GPL applies to 
works, not copies. So it doesn't metter which copy to use while it's 
the same work.

> But as far as I am concerned, legal niceties aside, if I dual-licence my 
> work (such as, let's say, making it GPL v2+), if you strip off the v2 
> and change it to v3+ you are misrepresenting me to my users, 

I don't misrepresent you, I don't represent you at all. I just pass 
your work under GPLv3 and don't imply that you have licensed it under 
GPLv3 only in the first place.

> and you are stripping my users of the rights I granted them. Doesn't 
> the GPL 2 itself say "you mustn't impose further restrictions"?

Sure. And requirement to pass arbitrary license grants from original 
author is exactly further restriction. So you cannot require it (if 
you want your program to be distributable).

> What is removing 
> the option to use v2, if not an unpermitted "further restriction"? 

Then let's see what GPLv2 really says about it. From section 6:

  You may not impose any further
  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

So I cannot impose restrictions outside GPLv2, not outside some 
license grant.

> While this may be a legal grey area, it isn't a grey moral area - 
> it's just unacceptable.

I fully agree that it's important question. And would like to see some 
solid base here. Unfortunately, for now, I only see appeals to judge's 
common sense, morality etc.

Alexander Cherepanov

Reply to: