Bug#815308: streamlining license version "or later" version syntax
Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 09:10 +0100 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
DISCLAIMER: IANAL.
> On 21/02/16 11:13, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:41 +0100 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
> > > Package: lintian
> > > Version: 2.5.30+deb8u4
> > > X-Debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's say that debian/copyright contains the following:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Files: foo
> > > Copyright: 2016, Mr Foo
> > > License: GPL-2
> > >
> > > Files: bar
> > > Copyright: 2016, Mr Bar
> > > License: GPL-2+
> > >
> > > License: GPL-2
> > > On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
> > > Public License version 2 can be found in
> > > "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Lintian will complain with a warning:
> > >
> > > W: libfoobar source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright
> > > gpl-
> > > 2+
> > > (paragraph at line X)
> > >
> > >
> > > Should lintian ignore the '+' suffix when determining if a
> > > License
> > > paragraph exists?
> > >
> >
> > Well, IMHO lintian is right here.
> >
> > You'll need also the "license grant", your License: paragraph'd be
> > incomplete without it.
> > And the license grant is the one that actually grants the "or later
> > option", not the license text itself in /usr/share/common-licenses
> >
>
> There is some ambiguity there, depending on the wording of different
> licenses.
>
> Consider the GPL 2 and 3, here they are:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
>
> Both contain a sample license grant at the bottom under the heading
> "How
> to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"
>
> If somebody copies the license grant into their README or source code
> then it is clear they are granting a GPL-[23] "or later" license.
>
> If somebody just drops one of those two files into their repository
> but
> does not copy the text of the example license grant into any other
> file,
> can we assume they mean "or later"? Or do we have to assume the most
> restrictive case, that they only authorize that specific version?
I guess this is tricky...
Only placing a license file in the repo is technically not a license
grant, that would mean "all rights reserved, period". However, if
there is enough reason to believe that by placing it into the repo the
copyright holder *wants* to apply the license, one can probably assume
so too. (In doubt, the copyright holder should be asked)
> The last sentence in clause 9 only resolves ambiguity for the case
> where
> their license grant is present but does not specify a version, e.g.
> source code including "This file is GPL licensed." It does not
> resolve
> the problem for code that includes a copy of the GPL file without a
> grant statement.
As you said, it depends on the license grant. If it simply said "This
is under the GPL", this is a grant, in this case you have the choice of
which one (GPL2 §9; GPL3 §14), as you'd "not specify a version number
of this License"
Otherwise, if there is a version given, the "or later" needs to be
stated explictly. (I think that can be read from §9 GPL 2.0; also
copyright defaults to "all rights reserved", extras must be explictly
granted)
I think, in the case where you can without reasonable doubt say that
the work is covered by the GPL but there is no grant, you can also
assume the "any version" clause -- as technically there is no version
number in the license ...
In course, in doubt it is always better to ask the copyright owner
about it...
So I guess it just boils down to the usual thing: encourage upstream
authors to be very clear in their licensing, best having per-file
license-headers and in doubt ask them what they've intended.
--
tobi
>
Reply to: