On 21/09/2001 at 13:04 Stuart Ballard wrote: >"Simon P. Lucy" wrote: >> >> Any dual licence which includes the GPL requires in conforming to the >> GPL licence that the GPL licence language only be in the file. That's >> not to say that people might ignore that, there seems to be a certain >> cavalier attitude to some of these things, but the GPL requirement is >> an absolute. > >Please point to the language in the GPL that specifies this. I've read >the GPL a number of times, and my understanding was that this was NOT in >the "normative" part of the license, but only a recommendation. If I >remember correctly, it even says so explicitly.
The requirement is a consequence of using the licence: Section 4 of the licence contains 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. . Sublicencing may or may not be relevant but 'distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.' certainly is. Section 6 contains. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Including another licence which does restrict recipients in some way, which the NPL and MPL do, breaches the GPL. >> No I never considered anything being re-licenced of mine, I really >> don't think anything is left that could matter that's all. I'm not >> being a dog in the manger, anything I did I did in the spirit of, and >> under the terms of, an agreement everyone understood. I did not >> contribute believing that files would be relicenced in such a way as >> to violate the original spirit of the licence. I am _not_ to blame >> for this. > >Since you don't believe there is anything of yours left in the tree, >there wouldn't be any harm in making a blanket statement of the form "if >there are any fragments of my code remaining in the Mozilla tree, they >can be relicensed in this way", right? Or do you think there's a risk to >you from GPL'ing even a tiny fragment of code that you weren't even >aware existed? I never allow anything I produce to be licenced using the GPL, its simply too dangerous for the kinds of things I do. I go to strenuous lengths to avoid it and have turned down work which would have meant modifying or creating files under the GPL. > >Alternatively, how about just saying that any such fragments are in the >public domain? This would allow mozilla.org to license them in any way >they see fit, without you having to ever license anything under the GPL. Any contributions I made were made within files that already existed I don't see how a subset of a file can be in the public domain. From my point of view it is not for me to identify if any work of mine exists in the tree and grant permission. > >> I might also say that there has been no test in a court as to the >> legitimacy of dual licences. > >Nor of the GPL itself. However, a lot of highly paid lawyers consider it >valid, and the same applies to dual-licensing. Lawyers opinions are largely just that and for the most part these kinds of things revolve around risk assessment rather than absolute definition. You can find other opinions which find parallel dual licencing where the same file contains two or more mutually exclusive terms of distribution and use dubious. > >> I don't have the references to hand right now, its a long while since >> I brought all this up originally, but there is an authority that >> believes combined mutually incompatible licences would cause any judge >> required to rule to say that neither licence could be considered valid >> and that the file would be public domain. I realise that's a >> worthless opinion without an authority, though it did form part of the >> solicitors' opinions I got in the first place. > >I don't understand. There is ONE license, and it reads like this: Absolutely not, this is a complete misunderstanding. A 'dual licence' is not a licence which contains licences. What that language is is an offer to _either_ use one _or_ the other licence. It is not a licence in itself. > >You may use this code either under this set of terms, or this set of >terms, or this set of terms. > >Thus this license isn't inconsistent in any way: even if the individual >sets of terms conflict with each other, the actual license is not >inconsistent because it doesn't require ALL of them to be in force, just >any individual one of them at the choice of the licensee. > >Could you please try to explain (I know you have before, but I've never >been able to see it, and judging from the conversations here nobody else >has either) exactly what the "inconsistency" is? I think the important thing to realise is that you cannot combine mutually exclusive terms in an umbrella licence. You cannot take a third parties licence and modify it to do that unless that licence itself expressly allows it. The MPL and NPL can be modified to allow it, they were. The GPL and LGPL can't be, and verbal permission or acceptance by Stallman isn't enough for that, it would need to be in the body of the licence itself somehow. That won't happen because it undermines the point of the GPL itself which is for it to be an unrestricted licence that cannot be constrained in any way. You can certainly offer to distribute files on differing terms but it must be clear at the time of receipt which set of terms are being used. Whilst personally having the tree under the GPL would always mean that I could not contribute back, I would not be constrained from using it at all so long as it was clear under which terms I expressly used the source. So, whilst I think its a mistake, if mozilla.org want a GPL licence then they can certainly have one, but they also have a responsibility to enable users of that source to protect themselves from any action in the future. Actually I think a lot of the issues are agreed. There is a difference between those that think they matter and have consequences and those that take a more optimistic view, possibly because they don't take licences seriously anyway. Simon > >Stuart.
