Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
Am Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:44:44PM +0200 schrieb Страхиња Радић: > On second thought, I think Markus may be right. It is GPL which would forbid > non-compatible sublicensing (which is changing the license of derived works > *completely*), not Expat. Under Expat, you can sublicense *your copy/fork* to > any license, including the proprietary licenses. (This is one of the reasons > why I think that GNU GPL is superior--it stays true to the original intent.) > Exactly. > Of course, the copyright holder(s), or original authors, can always choose to > retain the original license on their software, or relicense their work in any > way they choose (IMHO this wouldn't retroactively impact the forks made when > the program's license allowed free-software-licensed forks). > That does seem to be the case. When Jörg Schilling changed the license of his cdrtools to CDDL, the Debian project created cdrkit based on a fork of the most recent GPL licensed cdrtools version, just to avoid issues. Of course this lead to patches from Jörg not being picked up in cdrkit and vice versa. Ciao, Markus
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 23/06/18 09:01, Страхиња Радић wrote: > You can't license the whole of A as GPL, only your modifications. [...] > which explicitely forbids removing the copyright and permission notices on > Expat-licensed code, or replacing them with, say, GPL notices. On second thought, I think Markus may be right. It is GPL which would forbid non-compatible sublicensing (which is changing the license of derived works *completely*), not Expat. Under Expat, you can sublicense *your copy/fork* to any license, including the proprietary licenses. (This is one of the reasons why I think that GNU GPL is superior--it stays true to the original intent.) Of course, the copyright holder(s), or original authors, can always choose to retain the original license on their software, or relicense their work in any way they choose (IMHO this wouldn't retroactively impact the forks made when the program's license allowed free-software-licensed forks). signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 23/06/20 08:41, Miles Rout wrote: > It requires the notice is included (so people know that that code is > available elsewhere under that licence), not that the notice is included _as > your licence for the overall work_. As someone else said, "words do matter". Copyright notice is not "just words", it is important and carries legal weight. Expat license requires that the copyright and permission notices are left intact in (and thus apply to) "all copies" or "substantial portions" of the software. In this, it is not entirely "permissive". It is implied that the software which is mentioned here is the original code as published by the original author. If someone makes additional code which complements that program but is otherwise newly introduced to the program, he can (sub)license (according to terms of Expat license) the additional code under a different license, provided it is compatible with Expat. GNU GPL is such a compatible license.[1] > Works as wholes are licensed under > copyright licences, not parts of works. False. Parts of works can be licensed under different licenses and combined into a single unit, provided the two licenses are compatible. See [1]. The same program can even be multi-licensed by the copyright holder (original author).[2] > I don't think relicensing is particularly relevant: the question is whether > your work, i.e. the whole program you have published, which includes both > code you wrote and you did not write, is able to be licensed under the GPL. > That is about licence compatibility. Let us recall the original message: > I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are released > under MIT rather than an alternative like GPL. Is it just to make it > compatible > with more other software? So yeah, the topic is about potential relicensing of suckless software under GNU GPL. Still, as far as compatibility goes, the question is already answered multiple times here: Expat license is compatible with the GNU GPL.[3] [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 23/06/18 04:58PM, Miles Rout wrote: > As far as I understand, if you create a work (A) that is a fork of another > work (B), where B is MIT-licensed, nothing stops you from licensing A as GPL. > I > wouldn't call it "relicensing": you're licensing your own work, A, which > happens to be derived from B. You aren't licensing B, which is someone else's > work. You do need to credit B's copyright holders of course. > > Have I got something wrong here? I am no copyright lawyer, that is for sure, > so I cannot claim any expertise. Or did you mean something different? You can't license the whole of A as GPL, only your modifications. Expat license requires that: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all > copies or substantial portions of the Software. which explicitely forbids removing the copyright and permission notices on Expat-licensed code, or replacing them with, say, GPL notices. Like I said, Expat license is GPL-compatible[1]. That means[2]: > It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can > combine > code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in > one larger program. > > All GNU GPL versions permit such combinations privately; they also permit > distribution of such combinations provided the combination is released under > the same GNU GPL version. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it > permits this too. > > GPLv3 is compatible with more licenses than GPLv2: it allows you to make > combinations with code that has specific kinds of additional requirements > that > are not in GPLv3 itself. Section 7 has more information about this, including > the list of additional requirements that are permitted. However, it *doesn't* mean that I can just take someone's program A licensed under Expat and relicense the parts of my fork B (realistically, perhaps 95% of program A) under GPL. More precisely, that is not legally possible, as I stated before. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
Hi Hiltjo, > you'd have to keep both the MIT license with the original copyright > information. I believe this part is true because almost all MIT style licenses (with some exception such as `MIT-0`) have the following restriction: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > I think you can relicense only your own changes to GPL [...] > > And probably explain very clearly to which new parts the GPL license applies. However, I don't believe these are true. Because there's nothing in the MIT license that requires tracking which part is new nor is there anything preventing derivative work under a different license. So my understanding is more or less the same as what Markus Wichmann said on the other reply. - NRK
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
Am Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 11:44:18AM +0200 schrieb Hiltjo Posthuma: > Hi, > > I think you can relicense only your own changes to GPL, so you'd have to keep > both the MIT and GPL license with the original copyright information. > > And probably explain very clearly to which new parts the GPL license applies. > This is false. When you create a program, call it foo, and release it under the MIT license, then you give permission to anyone to re-release it with or without changes. Great. Now I come along, create a program bar, and base it upon foo. bar is a derivative work of foo, and so I as creator of bar need permission from you as creator of foo to create it. Luckily I have your permission. It is in the license (license and permission mean substantially the same thing). So I can release all of bar under the GPL. All I have to do is write into the documentation: bar, Copyright Markus Wichmann, released under the terms of the GPL, see file COPYING. Based on foo, Copyright Hiltjo Posthuma, released under the terms of the MIT license, see file COPYING.foo. That way, I have fulfilled the terms of your license and am therefore allowed to create a derivative work (which I would class under a mix of "use", "copy", "modify", and "merge"). And for my own work, I can use whatever license I wish, and I choose the GPL. I could also choose a commercial license. So long as I fulfill the terms of your license, that is all OK for me to do, since that is what you have given me permission to do. The other way around would not work, since if I create a work and license it under the GPL, then I do not give you permission to rerelease the work without restriction. I only allow you to do so under the same license terms. Summary: Words have meaning. Ciao, Markus
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:58:07PM +1200, Miles Rout wrote: > > > On 6 May 2023 8:56:23 pm NZST, "Страхиња Радић" wrote: > > But that is pointless to > >bring up here, because the reality is that the programmers who made suckless > >software mostly picked Expat License (and are calling it "the MIT License"). > >It > >is irrelevant for non-GPL programs I fork or contribute to, because once the > >license is picked, software it applies to can't be relicensed. > > As far as I understand, if you create a work (A) that is a fork of another > work (B), where B is MIT-licensed, nothing stops you from licensing A as GPL. > I wouldn't call it "relicensing": you're licensing your own work, A, which > happens to be derived from B. You aren't licensing B, which is someone else's > work. You do need to credit B's copyright holders of course. > > Have I got something wrong here? I am no copyright lawyer, that is for sure, > so I cannot claim any expertise. Or did you mean something different? > > >Here we come to my main point: that this is a troll topic, promoting > >division > >and pushing the main suckless principles to the background. Consequently, I > >already wrote too much here. > > I see no trolling in this thread. Suckless people generally seem to respect > others' opinions. Nice to see in this day and age! > > Kind regards, > Miles. > Hi, I think you can relicense only your own changes to GPL, so you'd have to keep both the MIT and GPL license with the original copyright information. And probably explain very clearly to which new parts the GPL license applies. -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 6 May 2023 8:56:23 pm NZST, "Страхиња Радић" wrote: > But that is pointless to >bring up here, because the reality is that the programmers who made suckless >software mostly picked Expat License (and are calling it "the MIT License"). >It >is irrelevant for non-GPL programs I fork or contribute to, because once the >license is picked, software it applies to can't be relicensed. As far as I understand, if you create a work (A) that is a fork of another work (B), where B is MIT-licensed, nothing stops you from licensing A as GPL. I wouldn't call it "relicensing": you're licensing your own work, A, which happens to be derived from B. You aren't licensing B, which is someone else's work. You do need to credit B's copyright holders of course. Have I got something wrong here? I am no copyright lawyer, that is for sure, so I cannot claim any expertise. Or did you mean something different? >Here we come to my main point: that this is a troll topic, promoting division >and pushing the main suckless principles to the background. Consequently, I >already wrote too much here. I see no trolling in this thread. Suckless people generally seem to respect others' opinions. Nice to see in this day and age! Kind regards, Miles.
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
Hello, fellow magicians and wizards. This comment doesn't reply to anyone's comment in particular, just my opinion on the matter. TL;DR: Intellectual Property should be denied right to exist, same with government's abusive power over our lives in which we are approved less and less security, privacy, anonymity, freedom and other rights everyone should have to ensure a proper quality life.. DISCLAIMERS: 1. I currently got a eye condition so I have to seriously save time by cutting corners (such as not reading all that you guys wrote), and also save time by not reading what I wrote and make sure it makes 100% sense.. my eyes hurt the more I stare at screen (no, a simple solution like "blink, idiot" doesn't fix) 2. Sometimes I think that we ought to add some politics.. sometimes it's the best way to spread both at the same time: politics/beliefs and software. How? Like this: If you're a politican or someone who explores life and one's right to freedom, etc. and agree with say this and that: you'll perhaps use this software or at least spread awareness of it just for the political/philosophical side of it. If you like the software very much, like think "damn this is well built", perhaps you'll also consider the same about the political side of it/what comes with it. 3. by political I might have meant philosophical. I thought that politics and ethnicity of things didn't really matter until I realized more and more what I want in life, what I want life to look for me and others, and that we all directly or indirectly contribute for or against this world in one way or another. For example: if you do jack shit: changes are that in a few decades or even just a few years - you will live in a dystopia. Although you might live in a dystopia, the entire world might be a dystopian place, too, there might be some people who have seen the truth, probably from before, since more and more censorship is being utilized, and our privacies ruined: truth is lesser and lesser, meaning those who live in a dystopia are likely to live in it until they die, if that makes sense. So if I live in a world that I want to live in (say my own world/life will not be the same for everyone, because of their choices), I'll have a better life as well as perhaps interest others to do same or similar. Not sure where I was going, just a political/ethical/religious summary of I guess So I want to control my life and be able to make choices, etc., basically live in a utopia. To do so, I want/have to reject most if not all government regulations, laws as well as grants (such as "Protection against misuse because to copyright"). I, henceforth also deny government's power, meaning I don't want to get it's protection, nor even admit that intellectual property (IP rights: copyright, patents, trademark) exists, as it's I believe a government construct.. or construct of some kind, that just doesn't really hold water for me... copyright was, according to Richard Stallman, in the beginning for the public's sake, their "ability"(more like approval) to print books.. it's s way different nowdays. In today's world many bad things are not only encouraged, but even awarded.. such as capitalism, selfishness, lack of freedom I mean government-given security, justice, equality or equity, etc. People these days do things for money, instead for the spiritual merit as well as other spiritual, social or emotional awards from doing something and/or completing it. Of course open soruce is usually free, but it utilizes government's abuse to force this and that person to be able to do just this and that, and sometimes for this and that purpose (if I understood Linus Torvald's opinion on GPLv3, it's this). I don't pretend that government doesn't have (abusive) power and doesn't control my life, I deny it, be them some sort of sentences or benefits(say IP protection, etc.). P.S. Government is evil beyond imagination, and it makes people evil trough capitalism, encouring less human rights and making them slaves and/or enraged so they go and massacre each other instead of the heads.. kill the fucking head, not servents, etc.
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 11:31:04AM +0200, Страхиња Радић wrote: > but the arguments presented in it leave me unconvinced. The "maneuverings" argument in specific was entirely misdiagnosed. Even in his own example (redhat trying to remove /etc) you can clearly see it has nothing to do with GPL and everything to do with _adoption_. Let's imagine a world where the linux ecosystem (including the GNU tools) were permissively licensed. And now redhat wants to remove `/etc`. Of course, if redhat was the only distro that did this, most applications wouldn't adopt their policy - leaving them with an insane amount of packages which will be broken on their distro - making this plan infeasible. According to that article's logic: This kind of "hijacking" and political maneuverings never happen with a permissive license like the BSD or MIT licenses. in this imaginary universe, redhat would just go, "Hmm, we didn't get what we wanted, but since linux is BSD licensed, we'll just give up." Does that sound realistic? Of course not. They would've done exactly what they're doing right now - trying to push their policies unto every (or at least most) distros via the virus that is systemd so that their policies gain _adoption_ among applications/libraries. Linux being GPL/BSD makes zero difference when you need adoption from a massive amount of third party applications. If you want a real world example, just look at wayland-protocol, which is MIT licensed. According to that articles logic, Valve can just fork it and add their custom-protocol and implement it in their compositor. But if Valve's compositor is the only compositor that implement's a protocol, then most applications won't follow/adopt it and thus the protocol will be useless. So the reality of the situation is that Valve is still "maneuvering" and trying to get what they want into the upstream wayland-protocol so that it gains adoption. The MIT license made zero difference. - NRK
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 23/05/06 09:55PM, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> [0]:https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-problems-with-the-gpl.html
Dear Laslo,
Thank you for reminding me of Unixsheikh's article on his view of GPL and other
licenses. I read it a while ago, but the arguments presented in it leave me
unconvinced. I don't think the two matters, of picking a license and ensuring
that programs remain simple and to the point in the technical sense, are or
have to be connected. I simply linked some of the articles on gnu.org which I
think are relevant and complement the articles linked before my reply by
presenting the views of the "other side", which are behind GPL-related
licenses.
As I stated before, I don't see the practical point of this "debate" with
regards to (most of) existing suckless software - the Expat ("MIT") license
can't (_legally_; of course _realistically_ anything goes, even "software
'piracy'" is a reality but illegal) be changed, even if it is "permissive". It
is GPL-compatible, Expat-licensed works can be combined with GPL-licensed
works. So what's the point in that case?
The only viable "debate" could be about what license to pick for future
programs written from scratch, but that wasn't what OP asked.
Sincerely,
Strahinya
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Sat, 6 May 2023 10:56:23 +0200 Страхиња Радић wrote: > [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html > [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > [4]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Thank you for your very diverse and neutral selection of sources. I think this article[0] gives a good insight into the leading questions of the debate. [0]:https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-problems-with-the-gpl.html
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:05:39AM +0100, Ray Garner wrote: > Hi > > I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and > think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses. > > I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are > released under MIT rather than an alternative like GPL. Is it just to make > it compatible with more other software? Since I'm a hobbyist programmer and not a hobbyist lawyer, I just go by word count. If nothing else, it's a 100% objective standard. My current best choice is 0-clause BSD, which beats MIT by about 60 words. > Also, the GPL is included on the on the cat-v.org list of harmful software but > without explanation. Does anyone here know if its considered harmful for > compatability reasons or something else? > > Anyway, thanks for the programs. > > Cheers > Ray > -- Storkman
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 23/05/05 08:07AM, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > I try to take a balanced stance in the GPL vs. MIT discussion, given it > usually derails into tribalist diatribes on both sides. Essays have been written and are available online explaining everything about GPL and related licenses, so there's no need for anyone to reiterate what is already there (examples: [1], [2], [3], [4] and so on). Anyone interested can read them and form their own opinion. Personally, I believe that GNU GPLv3+ is superior and use it for programs I write from scratch. But that is pointless to bring up here, because the reality is that the programmers who made suckless software mostly picked Expat License (and are calling it "the MIT License"). It is irrelevant for non-GPL programs I fork or contribute to, because once the license is picked, software it applies to can't be relicensed. Here we come to my main point: that this is a troll topic, promoting division and pushing the main suckless principles to the background. Consequently, I already wrote too much here. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html [4]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Thu, 4 May 2023, at 09:05, Ray Garner wrote: > > I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and > think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses. > > I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are > released under MIT rather than an alternative like GPL. Is it just to make > it compatible with more other software? > > Also, the GPL is included on the on the cat-v.org list of harmful software but > without explanation. Does anyone here know if its considered harmful for > compatability reasons or something else? To some, freedom means the freedom to do *anything* with a piece of software. To others, it does not and other priorities take precedence. In my experience, the former crowd tends to write less about this stance and solely focus on software. Discussions on these matters are sadly rarely productive as it is purely ideology. I am sure there are better write ups on the permissive stance on licensing, but this is what I usually link: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
[dev] [license] gpl issues
Hi I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses. I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are released under MIT rather than an alternative like GPL. Is it just to make it compatible with more other software? Also, the GPL is included on the on the cat-v.org list of harmful software but without explanation. Does anyone here know if its considered harmful for compatability reasons or something else? Anyway, thanks for the programs. Cheers Ray
