Re: a better copyleft licence
I must have phrased that poorly. If so, I'd appreciate a proper unambiguous wording. Here is my intent: I will allow you to take my code and use it as a module in another program, *provided* that *entire* program is distributed as free (as in speech) software (including full sources available). Ie it's okay to distribute it linked so something else that's incompatible with the GPL for some lame reason, but not with something that's incompatible with the GPL because it's not free or doesn't include sources. I was hoping that DFSG was sufficient to specify this. Particularly with regard to sources, due to DFSG point 2, The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) 2.Source Code The program must include source code, ...
Re: a better copyleft licence
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Ie it's okay to distribute it linked so something else that's incompatible with the GPL for some lame reason, but not with something that's incompatible with the GPL because it's not free or doesn't include sources. I seriously doubt whether you're going to be able to pin this concept down in a precise way. Maybe you should just invite future authors to contact you and consider their requests on a case-by-case basis. -- Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/ Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, England The new operating system will recover more easily from system crashes. (Microsoft, aiming high with Windows Millennium)
Re: a better copyleft licence
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If someone wants to distribute a proprietary module, let them distribute it separately, and tell the user that it's there responsibility to link it. Yes, it's a pain on the users, but if you don't like it, use the GPL. I sometimes think the GPL might be equivalent to the LGPL modulo inconvenience, but I'm not sure about it. For example, if you want to distribute a GPL library with a non-GPL program, or vice versa, just distribute the non-GPL part on CD with an installation script that downloads the GPL part from some publicly advertised web server. I think the FSF would strongly disapprove of you doing this, but I suspect that you could win in court. However, it's not clear, and I can see arguments on both sides. tough call, as is the installation script doing distribution or not? I can believe the FSF would disapprove, but again, since the GPL covers distribution, not use, nothing prevents a user from doing the linking. And, at minimum, it's enough of a pain that the user (and developer) would hopefully say I want the full GPL, no hassles What I was trying to do with my extra clause (in the message that started this thread) is allow this sort of linking of GPL and non-GPL components without giving up entirely the viral property of the GPL. Since the viral property of the GPL is it's main reason (i.e. you must release code containing GPL'd software under a license that at least grants the same rights as GPL), I suspect you won't get a change. However, the LGPL was designed for situations that you're describing. Remember also that you can link non-GPL code with fewer restrictions into GPL code, and release the collective work under GPL (i.e. X license code can be incorporated into GPL programs). If the FSF would sue someone for doing what I describe above and lose the case, then I wouldn't need my extra clause; I could just use the GPL itself. (Of course, when 95% of the world's software is free, then we can switch to a licence even stronger than the GPL, one that bans anyone from using the Program if anyone connected with them has at any time had any contact with non-free software ... :-) Edmund Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470 Thought for today: despew /d*-spyoo'/ v. [Usenet] To automatically generate a large amount of garbage to the net, esp. from an automated posting program gone wild. See ARMM.
Re: a better copyleft licence
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:17:22PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: This software is licensed under the GPL [... standard boilerplate.] In addition to the distribution rights granted by the GPL, this software may used as a module linked to other modules resulting in a whole which constitutes a single work, eg as a library linked into a program, even if the entire program is not licensed under terms compatible with the GPL, and the resulting work distributed, *provided* that the composite work is distributed under DFSG-compatible terms. The G stands for Guidelines. It was never meant to be a legally solid definition of free software, and it isn't. I wouldn't use it as part of a contract. Richard Braakman
Re: a better copyleft licence
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: program, even if the entire program is not licensed under terms compatible with the GPL, and the resulting work distributed, *provided* that the composite work is distributed under DFSG-compatible terms. I do not think you really archieve something with this. Someone may wrote some 5 lines programm using your library and put all together under some Everything allowed licence. Then anyone is allowed modify and put it under some pay-for-it licence. The incompatibilies of gpl and other licences have some reson. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: a better copyleft licence
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If someone wants to distribute a proprietary module, let them distribute it separately, and tell the user that it's there responsibility to link it. Yes, it's a pain on the users, but if you don't like it, use the GPL. I sometimes think the GPL might be equivalent to the LGPL modulo inconvenience, but I'm not sure about it. For example, if you want to distribute a GPL library with a non-GPL program, or vice versa, just distribute the non-GPL part on CD with an installation script that downloads the GPL part from some publicly advertised web server. I think the FSF would strongly disapprove of you doing this, but I suspect that you could win in court. However, it's not clear, and I can see arguments on both sides. What I was trying to do with my extra clause (in the message that started this thread) is allow this sort of linking of GPL and non-GPL components without giving up entirely the viral property of the GPL. If the FSF would sue someone for doing what I describe above and lose the case, then I wouldn't need my extra clause; I could just use the GPL itself. (Of course, when 95% of the world's software is free, then we can switch to a licence even stronger than the GPL, one that bans anyone from using the Program if anyone connected with them has at any time had any contact with non-free software ... :-) Edmund
Re: a better copyleft licence
You all know the sort of problem: according to some people's understanding of the GPL and copyright law, GPL software X cannot be linked with GPL-incompatible software Y and then distributed even if X and Y are separate works in separate packages. Invent yet another licence? I hope not. I've been pondering this issue. What do people think about the below? We're considering using it in some new GPLed software we're developing, so I'd appreciate feedback. This software is licensed under the GPL [... standard boilerplate.] In addition to the distribution rights granted by the GPL, this software may used as a module linked to other modules resulting in a whole which constitutes a single work, eg as a library linked into a program, even if the entire program is not licensed under terms compatible with the GPL, and the resulting work distributed, *provided* that the composite work is distributed under DFSG-compatible terms.
Re: a better copyleft licence
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:02:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: No doubt some people approve of this, but I think there are a lot of people who would prefer to apply a milder form of copyleft to their programs. How should they do this? I thought we had proposed a reasonably decent paragraph to the KDE people? Can't that be dusted off and used in different contexts? Perhaps someone can advise me whether the following paragraph, inserted after the paragraph that says This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License ... would have the right effect, or maybe someone can suggest a neater formulation. In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public Licence, if this software forms part of a program or library (this work) then you may compile and link this work with other programs or libraries (the other works) and distribute the resulting program or library in object code or executable form under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public Licence with the additional special exception to Section 3 of that licence that the source code distributed need not include the source code for the other works, provided that this work can reasonably be considered an independent and separate work from the other works and that the other works can reasonably be considered independent and separate works from this work. I'm not sure what advantage this (this clause plus the GPL) is supposed to have over just using the LGPL? -- Raul
Re: a better copyleft licence
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I thought we had proposed a reasonably decent paragraph to the KDE people? Can't that be dusted off and used in different contexts? Maybe. I haven't seen that paragraph. In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public Licence, if this software forms part of a program or library (this work) then you may compile and link this work with other programs or libraries (the other works) and distribute the resulting program or library in object code or executable form under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public Licence with the additional special exception to Section 3 of that licence that the source code distributed need not include the source code for the other works, provided that this work can reasonably be considered an independent and separate work from the other works and that the other works can reasonably be considered independent and separate works from this work. I'm not sure what advantage this (this clause plus the GPL) is supposed to have over just using the LGPL? The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered an independent and separate work. Also, the LGPL constantly refers to libraries, which would make it somewhat awkward to apply it to a program which isn't a library. Edmund
Re: a better copyleft licence
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered an independent and separate work. That just means that someone can slap on somthing so that the code can run standalone. I intend the expression to mean rather more than just that. I could add some explanation about what should reasonably be considered an independent and separate work, but I think it's clear that each part should be useful without the other part. For example, libssl is useful without mutt, and mutt is useful without libssl. My impression is that your clause actually offers less protection than the LGPL. Why do you think it offers less protection? I was hoping it might offer more protection. Let's consider the example of someone adding to Mutt a non-GPL module that lets Mutt talk to some kind of mail server. If Mutt were licensed under the LGPL (assuming it makes sense to license a non-library under the LGPL) then I think you could make some random small changes to existing files and put most of the new code in separate files that could be licensed any way you want (and might be binary-only). However, the intention of my clause is that you would have to put the new module in a separate library that communicates with Mutt via a clean, generic API, so that one could reasonably claim that the library is an independent work that doesn't require Mutt. Edmund
Re: a better copyleft licence
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered an independent and separate work. That just means that someone can slap on somthing so that the code can run standalone. I intend the expression to mean rather more than just that. I could add some explanation about what should reasonably be considered an independent and separate work, but I think it's clear that each part should be useful without the other part. For example, libssl is useful without mutt, and mutt is useful without libssl. Is mutt not still being developed by the original authors ? -- I though it was. This is generally the get out clause that most GPL'd packages use when linking against SSL etc. My impression is that your clause actually offers less protection than the LGPL. Why do you think it offers less protection? I was hoping it might offer more protection. There is the matter of LGPL being in use already, which would make it more protective in many people's eyes. Let's consider the example of someone adding to Mutt a non-GPL module that lets Mutt talk to some kind of mail server. If Mutt were licensed under the LGPL (assuming it makes sense to license a non-library under the LGPL) then I think you could make some random small changes to existing files and put most of the new code in separate files that could be licensed any way you want (and might be binary-only). This isn't true, AFAIK, they would have to provide the extension as a seperate library (even the static linking stuff wouldn't get around this). -- James Antill -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we can't keep this sort of thing out of the kernel, we might as well pack it up and go run Solaris. -- Larry McVoy.
Re: a better copyleft licence
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That just means that someone can slap on somthing so that the code can run standalone. On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:39:24PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: I intend the expression to mean rather more than just that. Ok, so it needs work. I could add some explanation about what should reasonably be considered an independent and separate work, but I think it's clear that each part should be useful without the other part. But what does useful mean? For example, libssl is useful without mutt, and mutt is useful without libssl. For example, let's say I wanted to use gcc to implement microsoft's upcoming C#, but that I didn't want to lose control of the language. So, I implement a library that my IDE uses to do stuff like syntax coloring on the source code, automatic adding of drop-downs, and such at appropriate points in the code, etc. And, I use that library to interface to gcc, using gcc's internals in a fashion so hopelessly complex that it would take years for anyone to implement anything competitive. [And, of course, in years, I'll have made a lot of improvements.] For this case, your conditions have been met, and you'd have a license which offerered considerably less recourse than just licensing gcc under the lgpl. [At least with the lgpl, they would have been forced to use some kind of public interface.] My impression is that your clause actually offers less protection than the LGPL. Why do you think it offers less protection? I was hoping it might offer more protection. Does my above example help? Would you like a different one? Let's consider the example of someone adding to Mutt a non-GPL module that lets Mutt talk to some kind of mail server. You don't even need to modify mutt for that. Just create something which supports writing a mail message to /usr/bin/sendmail's stdin. [You'd want to support a few sendmail options, but just a fraction of the total. I can give you some pointers if you're interested.] I know this works because I use it already (my .muttrc has a line that says: set sendmail=/home/moth/bin/sendmail -oi -oem And, yes, I do things on mail delivery which aren't options with any existing implementation of /usr/lib/sendmail. -- Raul
