Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Is this intentional? No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant* gives him permission. I can only combine works licensed under this license with works that allow changing to gpl2 *and* allow changing back to gpl3 *and* allow changing back to gpl3. That's what 4d says. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100423085157.ga28...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote in message news:mp+abdfeudxlf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk... In message 20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+). I think you're wrong here. Being pedantic, NO version of the GPL allows regrading. It's the grant of licence that allows the regrading. Is this intentional? No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant* gives him permission. Except the grant as stated in awful license grant posted appears to be approximately the following the following: - This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. As a special exception you may link this work with OpenSSL as long as you comply with its license, and comply with the GPL v3 (or at your option) any later version in all remaining respects, provided that the terms OpenSSL's licence contain no additional GPLv3 (or the later version you chose) incaptible terms relative to the version of the licences used by OpenSSL 1.0 in May of 2010, and under the condition that any recipients can upon removal of OpenSSL use this work under their choice of one the following: * no version of the GPL * GPL v2 only * GPL v3 only * GPL v2 or V3 only * GPL v2 or later * GPL v2 or later (except for V3) * GPL v3 or later * only versions later than GPL v3 -- That is pretty much what the terms currently say. I'm pretty sure that last part was not fully intended tro come out like that, but that is how the terms currently appear to read. That is why doing things like seperately listing V2, V3, and post V3 as seperate items was very stupid. What the grant writer actually wanted was most likely: --- This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. As a special exception you may link this work with OpenSSL as long as you comply with its license, and comply with the GPL v3 (or at your option) any later version in all remaining respects, provided that the terms OpenSSL's licence contain no additional GPLv3 (or the later version you chose) incomptible terms relative to the version of the licence used by OpenSSL 1.0 in May of 2010. That requires users to abide by V3 or later terms while using the SSL exception, allowing for any changes in the OpenSSL licence that do not make the OpenSSL license less compatible with the chosen version of the GPL than the current license is. (Changes that don't impact compatibility, or that increase compatibility with the GPL being of course permmitted). Of course that last clause could use a bit of cleaning up, and may have minor grammar or spelling issues, but I think I captured the basic idea. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hqdiu7$4j...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
In message 20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+). I think you're wrong here. Being pedantic, NO version of the GPL allows regrading. It's the grant of licence that allows the regrading. Is this intentional? No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant* gives him permission. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/mp+abdfeudxlf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Dererk der...@debian.org.ar wrote: 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any ^ version of the GPL greater than 3. Typos are bad in any license text. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/27825.1271088...@mixing.lau.dfo-mpo.ca
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: [...] So I think it's misleading to refer to “modified versions of the GPL”, since modified versions aren't the GPL any more. If you want to permit an action in a license text, it would be best to be clear on what action it is you're permitting. Not quite. You just have to take out the preamble and modify the instructions for use. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ...and call it by a name other than GPL! I am under the impression that this is what Ben meant, but I'll wait for him to clarify. You can still call it a modified version of the GPL. I think it depends on how clear you make it that the new license text was derived from the GPL, but it's not any version of the GPL, unless I misinterpret the FSF FAQ somehow... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpikTIV01xSC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: ...and call it by a name other than GPL! I am under the impression that this is what Ben meant, but I'll wait for him to clarify. Right. My point is that it's not helpful to say “modified versions of the GPL” are allowed, since at that point the term “GPL” doesn't apply usefully. Any text can be considered a “modified version of the GPL”, given sufficient modification. Better to simplify that to just “any license terms, given the following conditions:” and be clear on exactly what kinds of license terms are acceptable. -- \ “Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end.” —Igor | `\ Stravinskey | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpvzk4iwtrX0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010, Dererk wrote: 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here: 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and distributed here: 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any version of the GPL greater than 3. 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) that places additional restrictions on advertising and labeling of the software, provided that all of the following conditions are met: d. All recipients of the software retain the ability to distribute the software under any subset they wish of conditions 1-3 of this license provided they remove the incoporated OpenSSL library. So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+). Is this intentional? -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Hi! Dererk schrieb: Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements, but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it. That's perfect. GPL with OpenSSl linking exception. You couldn't ask for more :) Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bbeeaea.3030...@debian.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Quoting Dererk on 2010-04-08 19:05:39: I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before releasing the software itself Preemptive disclaimers: I am not a DD, ftpmaster, lawyer, or policy hacker. In short, I'm simply talking from my corpulent posterior here. I'm in agreement with Charles on this, but might have different logic as to how I reached this conclusion. To me it appears this license is DFSG free, as it provides the option to distribute under one of several licenses, each in as far as I know dfsg. It seems, from a lay read, that this is a more verbose and detailed version of a fairly typical multi-licensing scenario. -- _ Brian Ryans 8B2A 54C4 E275 8CFD 8A7D 5D0B 0AD0 B014 C112 13D0 . ( ) ICQ UIN: 43190205 | Mail/MSN/Jabber: brianlry...@gmail.com ..: X ASCII Ribbon Campaign Against HTML mail and v-cards: asciiribbon.org / \ Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Thanks for bringing your questions here, and for paying attention to the serious issue of licensing. Dererk der...@debian.org.ar writes: I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before getting rejected on the NEW queue :-) Releasing the software can happen, before submitting it for the Debian NEW queue. That would allow a better examination of the work. This license grants you the right to use, modify, and redistribute XX (the software). Is the name a secret somehow? Can we see the actual license text without modification? In this license, the term GPL designates one or more official, numbered versions of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. It specifically excludes drafts or working verions of licenses, or licenses with similar or identical names that are published by entities other than the Free Software Foundation. This seems superfluous and overly verbose. Why not use the recommended wording from the GPL: This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The “GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation” seems to cover what you spend a paragraph on above, no? You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under any one of the following conditions (at your option): 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and distributed here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any version of the GPL greater than 3. Please include the complete license terms in the work. It's not a legal requirement, but it is helpful to include the actual license text *in* the work, rather than a URL which at some point in the future could be unavailable or return a different text. If you want to discuss both GPLv2 and GPLv3, you could simply include them as files in the work (‘LICENSE.GPL-2’ and ‘LICENSE.GPL-3’, for example). This allows any recipient to know that you and they, at different points in time, are looking at exactly the same license terms. Then, the above three sections are equivalent to the recommended text From GPLv2: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. I would recommend you simplify and normalise the license text by making that replacement. 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) The GPL explicitly forbids modification of the license terms: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. So I think it's misleading to refer to “modified versions of the GPL”, since modified versions aren't the GPL any more. If you want to permit an action in a license text, it would be best to be clear on what action it is you're permitting. modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) that places additional restrictions on advertising and labeling of the software How could any such restrictions be compatible with GPL §7 and §10 regarding limits on additional restrictions? It seems you're wanting to refer to a set of license terms that isn't even in the spirit of the GPL any more. Perhaps you would be best avoiding use of GPL in this section at all, and describe explicitly just what kind of license you're allowing. While I can see that you're trying to allow freedom, and I agree that the explicit permission to all freedoms of the GPL version 2 or greater makes the work DFSG-free, I think the wording is unclear, overly verbose, insufficiently explicit, and needs to be simplified, as detailed above. I hope that helps, and thanks again for bringing this to our attention. -- \ “You are welcome to visit the cemetery where famous Russian and | `\Soviet composers, artists, and writers are buried daily except | _o__) Thursday.” —Russian orthodox monastery, Moscow | Ben Finney
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Dererk der...@debian.org.ar writes: 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) The GPL explicitly forbids modification of the license terms: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. So I think it's misleading to refer to “modified versions of the GPL”, since modified versions aren't the GPL any more. If you want to permit an action in a license text, it would be best to be clear on what action it is you're permitting. Not quite. You just have to take out the preamble and modify the instructions for use. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL You can still call it a modified version of the GPL. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100409.202825.38538952185178.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Le Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:05:39PM -0300, Dererk a écrit : I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before getting rejected on the NEW queue :-) Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements, but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it. Hello Derek, in summary, the work can be distributed under the GPLv2 or superior, or under the GPLv3 or superior with an exemption that lifts the incompatibility with the OpenSSL license (but that can not be used to accept new incompatible clauses that would be added after March 2010). This exemption can be removed, provided of course that the program is not linked anymore with OpenSSL. I do not see either something that would contradict the DFSG. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100409003426.ga28...@kunpuu.plessy.org
