Re: FLTK License
In message 49c9a819.rvf2v61xchuvg7vu%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The additional permissions make part of the license. Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive? Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at http://web.archive.org/web/2301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just a clarification? The FSF may be unusual in saying you can remove extra permissions. Normally you can't relicence someone else's code. But if you licence your added code WITHOUT the extra permissions, then you have effectively removed those permissions from the entire work. To get those permissions back, a recipient would have to strip your code from the work. 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
Re: FLTK License
In message 20090324232043.2789e...@pcolivier.chezmoi.net, Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com writes Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Correct - you can't change the permissions on the work THAT WAS LICENCED TO YOU unless you are given permission (which is *very* *rarely* done) If the FLTK demands that you use the FLTK for your own work, then that is unusual, and certainly demanding far more than the GPL (see below). Moreover the LGPL sates: [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you ] This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative works. I'm not at all sure it does. Think about mixing LGPL and GPL code. The resulting work has (effectively) had its LGPL rights stripped. But there's nothing preventing the recipient separating the GPL and LGPL parts and using each according to its licence. If, however, the FLTK does explicity require you to give the extra permissions, then it is GPL (and LGPL?) incompatible. Look at this way. The GPL *DOES* *NOT* *EVER* make you licence your code under the GPL, even if you mix it with someone else's GPL code and distribute it. What it does is require you to licence your code under a GPL-compatible licence, which guarantees to the recipient that they can *safely* treat the entire work *AS* *IF* it were GPL-licenced. What is the FLTK trying to achieve? The guarantee provided by the GPL is that, as a recipient, you do not need to care what the licence is on the individual bits. If ANY of it is GPL, you can safely behave *as* *if* *all* of it is GPL, even if it isn't. 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
Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation
Matthew Johnson writes (Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation): Well, if we take the position that it's not copyrightable then for our point of view it's not a problem what the licence is, we can distribute in main. It's also not a problem form his PoV, because he's happy for us to distribute under that licence. The only thing he'll complain about is us distributing derivatives. Therefore, not ripping it out of the X.org package but also not packaging any variants would also seem like a reasonable conservative stance, if a bit schitzophrenic If we do not think that we and our users can _modify_ it, then it's not Free Software. If we find that we are avoiding modifying something at all, for legal reasons, I think it's hard to say that it's Free. Pragmatically, in the specific case, I agree with what others have said: if we didn't copy any of the _implementation_ then we're in the clear because the layout itself is not copyrightable. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: issues with the AGPL
I don't think there are any problems with the AGPL and indeed I might well consider using the AGPL for works of my own. I don't have time now to write a detailed rebuttal to each of Bill's points, I'm afraid. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
