Re: Re: Consultation on license documents
Quoting 刘涛 (2023-03-18 03:49:34)
> Oh my god, I'm so sorry. I originally wanted to say that every software package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but the input method was mistakenly typed as copyleft. Because I found that every package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but not every package has a "license.txt" document. So I want to confirm that we users want to know the license usage of the software package, which document should prevail. In addition, when the license information declared in the two documents is inconsistent, how should we deal with it, and which document shall prevail.
Some projects include a file intended to cover the whole project
(typically located in the root folder) containing only a general license
and nothing else (no copyright statements).
Such a file has no legal effect over other files from simply being
present in the project. To have effect over other files the project
need to have its copyright holders *grant* a license.
Some projects include a file intended to cover the whole project
(typically located in the root folder) where someone claims to hold
copyright and state that they as copyright holder *grant* certain
license over all or some portion of the project. This affects those
other files that the statement is about. If multiple copyright claims
and/or multiple license granting statements, then only the licensing
granted by the copyright holder has effect - i.e. if same copyright
holder grants multiple licenses then possibly (depending on wording)
*either* of those licenses apply, free of choice for each user, but
since only a copyright holder has the right to grant a license, if
someone claims copyright over a whole project but parts of the project
in reality was relicensed from someone else then only that someone else
had the right to license their parts.
If unclear who owns what and/or who granted what, then beware that legal
rules are different from math and logic: In the end copyright and
licensing statements are *intents* and their legal effect is only
certain when tried in a courtroom (and even then may be tried again with
potentially different legal interpretation in another courtroom for same
or another legal jurisdiction).
Common rule of thumb is that the most narrow statements have effect.
So if you have a code project with a bunch of code files, and one file
LICENSE.txt containing the GPLv3 licensing text and nothing else, and
another file COPYING.txt that says the equivalent o "I, Jonas, claim
to be the owner of creative works within this code project, and I grant
anyone the rights to use and copy and modify what I control the rights
over, by the legal principles of the Apache-2.0 general public license"
then that project is licensed as Apache-2.0 and *not* as GPL-3.
But if that same project, in addition to those two text files, also
within each code file contains a statement that I, Jonas, am copyright
holder and grants the rights of BSD-3, then those files are licensed as
BSD-3. If nothing else in the project is copyright-protectable, then
the project is dual-licensed as *either* BSD-3 *or* Apache-2.0 (but
still as GPL-3 because that license only *exist* but nothing in the
project has been *granted* those rules that it represents).
If instead, in addition to my copyright claim and Apache-licensing of
the project as a whole, the copyright holder of each and every
copyright-protecable file within the project was someone else, then my
claim had no effect over those files, and in reality the project would
be licensed as BSD-3 (not as Apache-2.0).
Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so only use my input here as
inspiration but seek a lawyer if you want legal certainty.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Reply to: