On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: > > > > > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD > > > > > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 > > > > > > > > > > So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the > > > > > GNU > > > > > GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three > > > > > files > > > > > alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to > > > > > use > > > > > anymore. > > > > > > > > Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a > > > > paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. > > > Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted > > > ones?
Both! > > > > > > You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, > > PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the > > right to modify the author's license document. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case > of the three files I see nothing bad done. > > > > If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can > > > choose. > > > It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: "alternatively" That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to match your argument. > > > > The word "alternatively" means "replace"? It might mean "select", but does > > it really mean "replace in-line"? What dictionary are you using? If > > something > > is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually > > means? > > That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. > > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative > > Noun > alternative (plural alternatives) > 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. > 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. > 3. One of several things which can be chosen. > > If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, > and > not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from > his > choice on has to be "on the same terms" he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 blah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively means nothing in this sentence. > > > > > The > > > > GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't > > > > trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. > > > > > > I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement > > > with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a > > > Free > > > Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with > > > it. > > > > > > If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. > > > The GNU GPL actually says you must license "under the same terms" as this > > > license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license > > > to > > > use). > > > > In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When > > things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. > > Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... > > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), > the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to > copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear? The GPL and ISC are compatible here. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing > compliance by third parties to this License. > > > > > I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy > > > OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of > > > particularly important details to my line of professional work. > > > > > > Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non > > > reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides > > > sometime > > > launch. > > > > Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, > > is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and > > they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? > > On the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones... > I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive other > users of the code they distribute. Your agreement is not relevant. The law is. I disagree with all kinds of things like paying taxes however I don't get to vote on that. Isn't that a drag? > > > Isn't that rude? > > On the 5 files, yes. On the other ones, not really. On the other three ones > what seems to me is "we offered it under two possible sets of conditions, > you chose one we don't like, so we cry foul". > > This is what seems rude to me, and I was trying to understand if it was a > problem with all files or just the 5 ones I noticed that weren't dual > licensed (in which case I fully agree with you). > > Best, > Rui > > -- > Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! > Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
