On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > > > All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans > > > > Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to > > > > others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that > > > > licensing is governed by the statement in this file, you accept this. > > > > > > Adding things to the files without due notice of the change is > > > *forbidden* by the GPL. Essentially this notice seems to say that you > > > get the *additional* right to do such additions if you transfer your > > > copyright to Hans Reiser. Formally that amounts to a dual-licensing > > > scheme which is fine by the DFSG as long as one of the alternatives > > > (i.e. GPL) is free. > > > > This is somewhat bogus. Reiser demands a specific form for the change > > notices required by GPL (2)(a) -- you have to remove a sentence. And > > this is certainly a requirement in addition to the GPL, which conflicts > > with section (6). > > > > Fortunately, this doesn't actually work in the US. You can't transfer > > copyright implicitly in the US -- you need signed paperwork (17 USC 204 > > (a)). > > > > I respectfully thing you are reading the license all wrong here. > > IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, but here is my reading: > > The files are availabe under GPL, with no limitations.
That's where we disagree. See below. > The Author makes an additional offer to license the code on > other terms in exchange for a fee, but only for the portions for > which he can legally do so. > > The Author makes a non-binding commitment to share the profit > from such fees with those who explicitly permit their changes to > be included in such commercial licensing. > > The Author makes a non-binding request, that people who modify > the code explicitly state the licensing of their changes. > > So far this should not be a problem. > > The Author claims, that if "You" modify a file without deleting > the reference to the extended license and replacing it with pure > GPL (or whatever), your changes become subject to the extended > license which grants the Author the permission to make the code > available under any license he chooses. That's not quite correct. He claims that he "owns" it. The only possible meaning of that is a transfer of copyright. It turns out that this doesn't actually work, but it's an attempt. > This is slightly more controversial, but essentially it works > the same way as LGPL->GPL conversion: If you modify an LGPL file > without changing the LGPL statement, your are putting your code > under LGPL (or it is not distributable). However you can change > the license from LGPL to pure GPL by simply changing the license > statement. Yes, but that's written into the license, while this is tacked on in a random separate file. > This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, > do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may > indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. > Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any. Ditto. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to be a slave." - Walt Disney
