In message <[email protected]>,
Andrew Dalke <[email protected]> writes
I pointed out the quote from a copyright lawyer with a special interest in free
software who said that the GPL was ambiguous about sublicensing
and if a chain of licenses was required or not.
I see the GPL explicitly agrees with me, not Larry Rosen :-) !!!
This is the GPL v3 - read the last section of "2. Basic Permissions" :
Which means you didn't look at the top of the first page of the link I
sent you, where you would see the book was written in 2004 and
therefore pre-GPLv3.
I didn't need to. I knew it was pre-GPL3. And you've confirmed this is
the book which confirmed my dim view of Larry's competence ...
It also means you didn't recall my original text where I wrote:
As you can tell, a professional lawyer in this field is not clear
about if the GPLv2 allows sublicensing, so I hope it's understandable
how someone could view a change from GPLv2 to GPLv3 without keeping
the chain of titles (which is the common practice) could be
considered a relicense.
My views on him are a direct consequence of discussing things - WITH HIM
- on the lsb mailing lists. He referred me to this book and I read it in
its entirety back then - quite some years ago (probably circa 2005,
maybe even 2004). Basically I formed the impression he was a very
capable lawyer, determined to twist everything to suit his
interpretation of things regardless of fact or clear intent. And as I
say, reading this book only confirmed that impression that I had already
formed.
I believe I have careful to only used references from that book with
respect to GPLv2, and not use it as a way to interpret reading the book
has helped me understand some of the improvements made in GPLv3. The
above was one of the few cases where I was not. The proper behavior
should be to point out that I likely was imprecise and should have
written "GPLv2" instead of simply "GPL."
"10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a
license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that
work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by
third parties with this License."
This is exactly the section (maybe worded, certainly numbered, differently)
that I have repeatedly been referring to from the GPL v2.
This is the specific improvement to text which Rosen says is ambiguous
in GPLv2. As you have not bothered to read the text and yet still
comment on what you believe he has written, I shall copy it here:
http://rosenlaw.com/Rosen%5FCh06.pdf
This GPL section 4, with its negative wording, is also the only place that
references the right to sublicense. One might assume from the way GPL
section 4 is worded that the right to sublicense was intended in sections 1
(right to copy), 2 (right to modify) and 3 (right to distribute) as well.
However, section 6 implies that there are no sublicenses but instead a direct
license from each up-stream contributor:
...
As to sublicensing, then, the GPL is ambiguous. I refer you to the discussion
in Chapter 5 of sublicensing in the MIT license. Sublicensing rights
can be very important to open source distributors for dealing properly with the
chain of title to contributions. In practice, most software projects
ignore the issue completely and assume that, for GPL software, only the most
recent license in the chain of title matters. They assume that GPL
licensed software is sublicenseable, but the GPL isn’t clear about that.
I think that ALL Larry's negative comments about the GPL stem from that
assumption that you can sublicence GPL code. As I understand the GPL,
(a) sublicencing is unnecessary, and (b) this very section 4 clearly
says you can only sublicence GPL code if the GPL explicitly says you can
(which it then *doesn't*).
That section in GPLv3 part 2 makes it clear that v2 did *not* intend to
permit sublicencing. Obviously, rms seems to respect Larry's view a bit
more than I do, in that he explicitly addressed it in v3, but equally
it's clear that v2 did not (in his view) permit sublicensing.
Sorry, I know I'm being nit-picky about things, but lawyers do nit-pick. If you
don't, it can cost you EVERYTHING.
Then nit-pick over things that actually exist. Lawyers at least get
paid to nit-pick over whatever they get paid for. They also get paid to
work on multiple iterations of their text, where obviously what I am
writing now is a first draft.
As I understand it, Larry is *willfully* *misunderstanding* the GPL.
imho that's a fact :-)
See above. It's the *grant* which allows YOU to choose which version of the GPL
applies to YOU. As I said above, I know I'm being nit-picky. But
if you don't understand what you're doing, then you're going to get burnt at
some point.
Point made. It could have been done without as many exclamation points
and two lines of clarification text in your original reply.
Sorry. That's just my writing style when I want to be emphatic.
I know. But I was trying to respond to what I perceived as your reasons for
bringing this into the issue.
I'm bringing it into the issue because I think your statement that
relicensing takes away rights is incorrect. Some relicensing does, but
others do not.
I then gave examples.
And I can understand why those owners became perturbed. Because they had chosen
GFDL and were shocked that *someone* *else* could
change that to CC. I would be shocked. Which is why I prefer licences that
DON'T allow relicencing.
Then be shocked. But the GNU licenses do allow relicensing, as I've
pointed out in the LGPL and the GFDL. That you don't like them doesn't
mean that they aren't still free licenses designed to not take away
rights.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or
of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If
the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
Software Foundation.
Will the BLACK LETTER of the GPL convince you otherwise? The statement in v3
that sublicensing is not permitted? The statement in both v2
and v3 that - if it's MY code, your recipients get their licence from ME not
you?
Except that the above text is NOT PART OF THE LICENCE.
If this is true then I can no longer make any statements about the
license. The above text ("If the Program specifies that a certain
numbered version of the GNU General Public License ... ") comes from
14. Revised Versions of this License.
in the section labeled "Terms And Conditions". If that is not part of
the license then I don't know what makes something part of the license.
To quote you fully:
the above text is NOT PART OF THE LICENCE. Yes, it's included in the licence
text but legally it has absolutely nothing to do with the licence
itself. It's just a recommendation as to the text of the licence *grant* - a
legally separate entity - which you need to have as well as the licence
itself before you have the right to do anything otherwise forbidden by
copyright law.
If this section is not part of the license then which other parts of
the T&C are not part of the license? Is it only section 14 which has
"absolutely nothing to do with the license itself"? Or can I also
ignore section 8? Section 3?
My best interpretation is that you did not read what I wrote and
assumed I repeated the text which suggests how to word the grant.
Section 14 is obviously a section on how to interpret the grant.
Correct :-(
Mind you, I wonder how a Judge would interpret it ...
If the Program just said "GPL" and the grant just said "GPL", would the
Judge say "okay, you can choose v3 and v3 gives you the right to choose
v1 or v2", or would he say "the grant is ambiguous therefore invalid",
or would he say "seeing as it doesn't specify a version, the only
reasonable assumption is it means 'the only version' and the only one
that ever satisfied that was v1".
So. Does section 14 actually make legal sense? Me dunno ... but it was
written by a lawyer ...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [email protected]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
