Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: The first paragraph of the Vim license says that an unmodified Vim can be distributed without restrictions. This is GPL compatible, right? At this point, I am having trouble being sure. It depends on questions which perhaps could be argued in different ways. If you want to make a license GPL-compatible, it is important to try to eliminate any uncertainty about the question. I think I have added all changes to handle the mentioned remarks. Below is the new draft. For me it's completely clear. Either you are distributing (1) an unmodified Vim or (2) a modified Vim. There are no restrictions on (1), so this must be GPL compatible. For (2) the option to distribute under the GPL is possible, thus this is also GPL compatible. About changes and linking with a library: Note that the first paragraph explicitly says that executables that you made from the unmodified Vim sources can be distributed without restrictions. Thus linking with the GPM library, which configure automatically detects, falls under this paragraph. == SUMMARY Vim is Charityware. You can use and copy it as much as you like, but you are encouraged to make a donation for needy children in Uganda. Please see |kcc| below or visit the ICCF web site, available at these mirrors: http://iccf-holland.org/*iccf* *ICCF* http://www.vim.org/iccf/ http://www.iccf.nl/ The Open Publication License applies to the Vim documentation, see |manual-copyright|. LICENSE DETAILS I) There are no restrictions on distributing unmodified copies of Vim except that they must include this license text. You can also distribute unmodified parts of Vim, likewise unrestricted except that they must include this license text. You are also allowed to include executables that you made from the unmodified Vim sources, plus your own usage examples and Vim scripts. II) It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with executables and/or source code, when the following four conditions are met: 1) This license text must be included unmodified. 2) The modified Vim must be distributed in one of the following five ways: a) If you make changes to Vim, you must clearly describe in the distribution how to contact you. When the maintainer asks you (in any way) for a copy of the modified Vim you distributed, you must make your changes, including source code, available to the maintainer without fee. The maintainer reserves the right to include your changes in the official version of Vim. What the maintainer will do with your changes and under what license they will be distributed is negotiable. If there has been no negotiation, then this license also applies to your changes. The current maintainer is Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]. If this changes it will be announced in appropriate places (most likely vim.sf.net, www.vim.org and/or comp.editors). When it is completely impossible to contact the maintainer, the obligation to send him your changes ceases. Once the maintainer has confirmed that he has received your changes they will not have to be sent again. b) If you have received a modified Vim that was distributed as mentioned under a) you are allowed to further distribute it unmodified, as mentioned at I). If you make additional changes the text under a) applies to those changes. c) Provide all the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can choose what license to use for new code you add. The changes and their license must not restrict others from making their own changes to the official version of Vim. d) When you have a modified Vim which includes all changes, as mentioned under c), you can distribute it without the source code for the changes if the following three conditions are met: - The license that applies to the changes permits you to distribute the changes to the Vim maintainer without fee or restriction, and permits the Vim maintainer to include the changes in the official version of Vim without fee or restriction. - You keep the changes for at least three years after last distributing the corresponding modified Vim. When the maintainer or someone who you distributed the modified Vim to asks you (in any way) for the changes within this period, you must make them available to him. - You clearly describe in the distribution how to contact you. This contact information must
Re: draft for new Vim license
Branden Robinson wrote: Well, I can see an easy way around this: Don't ship Vim such that it tries to link against the gpm library by default. This would be wrong anyway since Vim is not GPL'ed, and this would encourage people to violate the license on the GPM library. That's not necessary if the Vim license is GPL compatible, which I think it (almost) is now. Debian can write a very small patch that enables linking with libgpm, and Debian can license that patch under the GNU GPL. Don't like using this kind of tricks. -- [The rest of the ARMY stand around looking at a loss.] INSPECTOR END OF FILM: (picks up megaphone) All right! Clear off! Go on! Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: The GPL requires the freedom to be *allowed* to distribute the software to anyone. The company rules forbid the distribution of the changes to parties outside of the company. These two rules conflict. It is not really a conflict. These copies belong to the company and have never been distributed. The company can distribute the modified version if it wishes to, but the employees can't do so if the company doesn't want to. OK, I now understand that the company can be considered to be one licensee, thus passing copies around within the company is not distributing. Thus GPL'ed software can be modified for use inside the company. The only problem seems to be that companies don't always understand this. I know I didn't (sorry for the confusion!). -- INSPECTOR END OF FILM: Move along. There's nothing to see! Keep moving! [Suddenly he notices the cameras.] INSPECTOR END OF FILM: (to Camera) All right, put that away sonny. [He walks over to it and puts his hand over the lens.] Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to distribute it linked against GPM? I have to make a change (so it's a modified Vim)? Linking against GPM counts as making a change in the program as a whole. So that does not raise an issue. However, one thing that should be noted is that it has to be possible directly or indirectly to release the unchanged program under the GPL. Here's why. Suppose I start with version A and add some code (let's imagine it is 1000 lines) and release that modified version (call it B) under the GPL. Having version B under the GPL, I can change it again and release the result under the GPL. So I can delete those 1000 lines, producing version C which has the same code as version A but is under the GPL. What this means is that it is indirectly self-contradictory to say You can distribute modified versions under the GPL but not the original version. This issue may or may not actually be relevant to the proposed wording. I am not sure whether the proposed license wording tries to say that. The first paragraph of the Vim license says that an unmodified Vim can be distributed without restrictions. This is GPL compatible, right? Thus I would think an unmodified Vim can be distributed under the GPL, so long as you don't modify it. Thus both the GPL and the Vim license applies then, which is possible if they are compatible. -- I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by. -- Douglas Adams /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: I would rather see a note that this is not the original Vim but a modified version. But I suppose I can't require that without becoming GPL-incompatible... I'm working on changing the GPL to make it possible to add certain requirements along those lines. You might want to wait to see the draft of the next GPL version and then look at this issue again. That's a good thing. But I don't want to wait too long with the new Vim license, hopefully Vim 6.1 will be released soon. Also, some software will still use the old GPL license. For example, the GPM library on someones system is likely to have the old GPL version for a while. As a way out, I can modify the text to make it GPL compatible: 2) [...] e) When the GNU General Public License (GPL) applies to the changes, you can distribute the modified Vim under the GNU GPL. 3) A message must be added, at least in the output of the :version command and in the intro screen, such that the user of the modified Vim is be able to see that it was modified. When distributing as mentioned under 2)e) adding the message is only required for as far as this does not conflict with the license used for the changes. Any problem with that? -- JOHN CLEESE PLAYED: SECOND SOLDIER WITH A KEEN INTEREST IN BIRDS, LARGE MAN WITH DEAD BODY, BLACK KNIGHT, MR NEWT (A VILLAGE BLACKSMITH INTERESTED IN BURNING WITCHES), A QUITE EXTRAORDINARILY RUDE FRENCHMAN, TIM THE WIZARD, SIR LAUNCELOT Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: This is in the new draft: e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you can distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public License. I'll send out a new draft when some other issues are cleared up. Mostly about the requirement to give a message about the modified version. What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to distribute it linked against GPM? I have to make a change (so it's a modified Vim)? As far as Vim is concerned, an unmodified Vim can be distributed without restrictions. You can compile an executable and include it. That's the very first paragraph of the Vim license. It doesn't matter what license applies to libraries. So, if linking with a GPL library isn't a change, the first paragraph applies and the Vim license doesn't restrict distribution. This is GPL compatible, the GPL license of the library overrules this, thus the GPL applies. If linking with a GPL library is a change, then the new e) applies and distribution under the GPL can be done as well. Anything wrong with this? -- It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with a water pistol. [real standing law in Louisana, United States of America] /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Mark Wielaard wrote: On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 11:24, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Richard Stallman wrote: In section 2: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. The problem with this is that a user of Vim may never look in a changed file. I don't think the GPL requires that a message about the modifications is printed on startup or with version information. He would not be aware of using a modified Vim. It would be very much desired that the :version command says something about this Vim being modified. There is GPL clause 2 c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) This only requires that the applied license must be mentioned. It doesn't require mentioning that the program was modified. It would mean that when you add changes under the GPL, you are required to mention in the intro screen that the GPL applies to the program. I'm not really happy with that. I would rather see a note that this is not the original Vim but a modified version. But I suppose I can't require that without becoming GPL-incompatible... -- Beer pretzels can't be served at the same time in any bar or restaurant. [real standing law in North Dakota, United States of America] /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:54:30AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you can distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public License. What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to distribute it linked against GPM? I have to make a change (so it's a modified Vim)? As far as Vim is concerned, an unmodified Vim can be distributed without restrictions. You can compile an executable and include it. That's the very first paragraph of the Vim license. It doesn't matter what license applies to libraries. So, if linking with a GPL library isn't a change, the first paragraph applies and the Vim license doesn't restrict distribution. This is GPL compatible, the GPL license of the library overrules this, thus the GPL applies. But if there were no changes, e) isn't an option, so we're not allowed to change it to the GPL, so GPM's license restricts it. That's not a problem, because without changes the first paragraph applies, and it's compatible with the GPL (no restrictions on the distribution). Maybe someone else could explain how this would be permitted, but it would seem simple to make e) not care if there were changes or not. I don't think it needs to be changed. However, someone from the FSF should confirm that. If linking with a GPL library is a change, then the new e) applies and distribution under the GPL can be done as well. That would mean that simply compiling a program is changing it. Yeah, I wouldn't call linking a change. -- A special cleaning ordinance bans housewives from hiding dirt and dust under a rug in a dwelling. [real standing law in Pennsylvania, United States of America] /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: Because the company I worked for does not allow my work to be distributed outside of the company, and that conflicts with the GPL. This is a complete misunderstanding of the GPL. It does not require anyone to release modified versions at all. The GPL requires the freedom to be *allowed* to distribute the software to anyone. The company rules forbid the distribution of the changes to parties outside of the company. These two rules conflict. This causes confusion, at least, which results in people not being allowed to add secrets to GPL'ed software. Perhaps your lawyers can say what happens in case of such a conflict. For example, suppose that a person in a company sends a copy of a GPL'ed program with secret changes to a person outside of the company. The sender claims that he is allowed to do that, because the software is GPL'ed. The company claims he has broken company rules to keep that code secret. Who is right? So long as this isn't 100% clear, the result is that people won't add secrets to GPL'ed code to avoid this situation. -- BEDEVERE: How do you know so much about swallows? ARTHUR: Well you have to know these things when you're a king, you know. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: 2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified, at least in the version information and in the intro screen. The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific, hence not GPL-compatible. I could not find the similar requirement in the GPL. What would be the similar requirement that is GPL-compatible? In section 2: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. The problem with this is that a user of Vim may never look in a changed file. I don't think the GPL requires that a message about the modifications is printed on startup or with version information. He would not be aware of using a modified Vim. It would be very much desired that the :version command says something about this Vim being modified. If this clause is not GPL compatible, I would have to move it to the four alternatives, and allow the GPL-compatible distributing not do require this change in the version information. That makes it a bit more complicated, but it's possible. -- BRIDGEKEEPER: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? ARTHUR: What do you mean? An African or European swallow? BRIDGEKEEPER: Er ... I don't know that ... Arrggghhh! BRIDGEKEEPER is cast into the gorge. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: Hmm, I could add a 3e, which explicitly says that distribution under the GPL is allowed, but only if the changes are also under the GPL license. That would at least solve the problem of linking with the GPM library. That might work--I'd have to see the precise wording before I could say. This is in the new draft: e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you can distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public License. I'll send out a new draft when some other issues are cleared up. Mostly about the requirement to give a message about the modified version. Another issue is what happens when some changes are GPL'ed and some are not. I have to check that this is covered by the license somehow. I do try to stimulate people to make changes that I can include in the official Vim release. This does require that these changes use the Vim license. But this isn't a requirement. If someone wants to make changes that he doesn't want me to include in Vim, that should be possible. I am very surprised by this statement, because the central point of your current license seems to be to make sure that you can get any changes and incorporate them into Vim. There are two requirements that conflict: - I want people to be free to use Vim in any way they like. - I want to prevent someone to add something to Vim and make money with it, while it's still mostly my work. In the old license I required the privelige to include changes back into Vim. That should prevent the unwanted situation, since you can't make money from a modified Vim if the same thing can be done with the official Vim. But the requirement is a problem who want to keep their changes a secret, e.g., in a small group of people. The GPL and Debian also demand this to be possible. The new license tries to solve that. If I include 3e, distribution being allowed under the GPL, the remaining problem is that if someone makes changes to Vim and puts the GPL on those changes, I can't include the changes back into the official Vim, because it would mean 3e applies to Vim as a whole and the rest of the license is worthless. Now I am really confused, because this seems to reaffirm the views which I thought you held--precisely what you denied in the previous paragraph. I think we are having communication difficulties. Don't forget that there are conflicting demands. I have to find a balance between them. The problem is that people who put the GPL on their changes and distribute them to the world will think they do the right thing. If they don't know the details they will think everybody can use their changes. But in fact they are making it difficult for me to include the changes. It conflicts with the first requirement, in the way that I'm not free to include the changes back into Vim. -- Every exit is an entrance into something else. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Thomas Bushnell wrote: Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, so Debian has written and signed permission from all copyright holders? Don't think so... I don't know how valid the copyright and license remarks in the files are. There are quite a few files without a license that makes clear copying is allowed. Quite a few? That's a problem. Can you give a list, so we can figure out what to do with them? What would you do with such a list? Ask around who wrote it, verify that the author is correct and then get the permission to copy? Seems you are up to a lot of work. With little or no payback. I think you better use the principle that Vim comes as a package, and the license applies to the whole package, unless stated otherwise in individual files. The only risk is that someone takes one file out of the package and distributes it. Then it's not clear what copyright or license applies to it. But so long as Debian distributes the Vim license with the package, that's not your problem. It's only a risk for the person who wrote that file. And he might not really care about it. -- Proofread carefully to see if you any words out. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you add, so long as it does not restrict others from changing the official version of Vim. This prevents someboy from adding a patented item and not permitting others to add a similar item to Vim. I am not convinced those words really do this job. The difficulty is that, in such a case, it is not the license for the new code which restricts others, but rather the patent which does so. Maybe these words would do the job: c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you add, so long as it permits others to include all or any part of this new code in a subsequent official version of Vim. And you might want to add ... and release it under this License. Good point, this sentence can be misinterpreted. However, your words change the intention. I do want to allow people to make changes that use any license. I only want to avoid that those changes prevents a similar change to be done (by someone else) in the official version of Vim. The requirement that I'm allowed to include the changes in Vim makes it complicated. Effectively this means the license for the changes must be compatible with the Vim license. This causes the problems like what happens with GPL'ed software, which is what I was trying to avoid. How about this instead (only the second halve changed): c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you add. The changes and their license must not restrict others from making their own changes to the official version of Vim. -- ARTHUR: Ni! BEDEVERE: Nu! ARTHUR: No. Ni! More like this. Ni! BEDEVERE: Ni, ni, ni! Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code. This is a free software license, and I think it is better than the current Vim license. So I encourage you to switch to this license. It is not GPL-compatible, though, because of a few details. Thanks for looking into this. It appears we are getting towards a point that satisfies more people. 2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified, at least in the version information and in the intro screen. The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific, hence not GPL-compatible. That can be fixed. This isn't an important part (the previous Vim license didn't include this at all). 3) The modified Vim must be distributed in one of the following four ways: It's sufficient if one of these ways, or a combination of them, allows what the GPL allows. However, that is not so. a) If you make changes to Vim, you must clearly mention in the distribution how to contact you. When the maintainer asks you (in any way) for a copy of the modified Vim you distributed, you must make the changes, including source code, available to the maintainer. This clearly isn't GPL-compatible (and isn't trying to be). c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. I think this is trying to be GPL-compatible, but does not succeed. The reason is that this is somewhat more restrictive than the GPL actually is. If you want to make this license GPL-compatible, the easiest way is by making two changes: first, add an alternative 3e which specifically allows release under the GPL, and second, change 2 a little so it isn't more specific than what the GPL requires. Hmm, I could add a 3e, which explicitly says that distribution under the GPL is allowed, but only if the changes are also under the GPL license. That would at least solve the problem of linking with the GPM library. The question is what licenses I could use for modified versions of Vim. Specifically, could I release a modified version of Vim under the GPL? A license is GPL-compatible if it permits that; otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible. If I am required to use a license which permits you to rerelease my changes under the Vim license, then the GPL does not qualify (since it does not permit that), so the requirement is incompatible with the GPL. No, my intention is not to require changed or added code to fall under the Vim license. That's actually a part of the GPL that I'm trying to avoid. People should be free to chose a license for the code they write (with some conditions to protect other freedom). I do try to stimulate people to make changes that I can include in the official Vim release. This does require that these changes use the Vim license. But this isn't a requirement. If someone wants to make changes that he doesn't want me to include in Vim, that should be possible. But it should be discouraged in some way. I'm doing that by requiring the changes to be distributed as source code. If I include 3e, distribution being allowed under the GPL, the remaining problem is that if someone makes changes to Vim and puts the GPL on those changes, I can't include the changes back into the official Vim, because it would mean 3e applies to Vim as a whole and the rest of the license is worthless. I will have to think about this, and ask Vim developers what they think of it. -- Life is a gift, living is an art. (Bram Moolenaar) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
. Mostly the LGPL is used, which was made for libraries. I don't know the reasons why the GPM library doesn't use the LGPL. It's annoying for people who link software with it. -- It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: 2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified, at least in the version information and in the intro screen. The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific, hence not GPL-compatible. I could not find the similar requirement in the GPL. What would be the similar requirement that is GPL-compatible? -- TALL KNIGHT: Firstly. You must get us another shrubbery! OTHER KNIGHTS: More shrubberies! More shrubberies for the ex-Knights of Ni! ARTHUR:Not another shrubbery - Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Glenn Maynard wrote: Isn't it clear that this is about further distributing a modified Vim as was created as mentioned under c)? Does this mean that you can only use 3c for your own changes; and 3d for other peoples' changes? That's ... odd. Yes, because only the person who makes the changes can decide what license to use for them. People further distributing the changes can't change the license. But they can distribute part of it, under the mentioned conditions. 4) The contact information as mentioned under 3) must not be removed or changed. If the original author makes a correction, this can be considered to be a new change and a new modified version, which replaces the older one. He can't change it; 4) forbids it. Yeah, to be more exact the author must be allowed to correct the information: 4) The contact information as mentioned under 3) must not be removed or changed, except that the person himself can make corrections. Don't assume this means it hasn't happened. I have, in the past, tries a program; gone hey, this is neat--maybe I'll work on it, looked at the license, saw that I didn't like it and simply said oh well. True. I have done that with GPL-licensed softare many times. Why? What about the GPL would make you not want to contribute to something using it? Because the company I worked for does not allow my work to be distributed outside of the company, and that conflicts with the GPL. It might be possible to get permission, but that's a hassle (the legal department has to agree with the exception). And linking GPL stuff in code which is really not to be distributed (e.g., a PostScript interpreter) is out of the question. People who make libraries GPL probably tend to not want their code used by proprietary software *at all*; they don't want their contributed time being used to aid it. Exactly. That's why I would call the GPL non-free. *duck* :-) -- TIM: But follow only if you are men of valour. For the entrance to this cave is guarded by a monster, a creature so foul and cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived. Bones of full fifty men lie strewn about its lair ... Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
the result. That's actually the main problem of the GPL I don't like. But the dual-licensing would solve that. The only downside is that you may have contributors who assert copyright over their changes and want to license their code only under the GPL. If you don't want to maintain two different versions of Vim (one GPL'ed and one not), you'd have to reject such contributions. However, *you already have that problem today*. If I write a patch to Vim and GPL it, what will you do? Currently it would not be allowed to distribute a Vim with a change that falls under GPL, because the license says that the maintainer must be allowed to include the change in the official version of Vim. A change under the GPL conflicts with that, thus additionally you would have to permit me to include the changes in the official Vim. That's a sort of dual-licensing already! :-) In the dual-license situation you do get this problem. A fork of Vim might appear where a GPL'ed change has caused the whole to become GPL, since the alternative license can't be used together with the GPL'ed piece. With the draft license I sent there is the same problem, except that the changes must always be included. That's stricter than the GPL (which allows distibuting binaries under some conditions). That makes sure the changes have a much wider distribution and it will be easier for me to see them. But I'm not sure that is sufficient... As a matter of practice, you might want to ask people who contribute code to Vim -- and who want to retain copyright on it -- to license their code under the MIT or 2-clause BSD licenses. (I can provide you with copies of these if you don't have them handy; they are very short and very simple.) Alternatively, you could require that the copyright in changes to Vim be assigned to you. Given that your name is the only one that appears in Vim's debian/copyright file, I assume this is how you already operate. Copyright belongs to the person who wrote it. Depending on the countrly you are in, you mostly don't even have to put your name on it. Transferring copyright requires a written and signed paper. An e-mail with some vague statement won't be valid. However, nobody really cares about what the official rules are. Only very few contributions have the name of the author in them and are considered part of the whole. Finally, as a completely irrelevant aside, I think that RMS is not strongly advocating application of the GPL to Vim because he'd rather you used a non-free license on Vim so people have one less excuse not to use GNU Emacs instead. ;-) MicroSoft says software without GPL is better! :-) -- CONCORDE: Quickly, sir, come this way! LAUNCELOT: No! It's not right for my idiom. I must escape more ... more ... CONCORDE: Dramatically, sir? LAUNCELOT: Dramatically. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
. One problem is that it allows someone to add copyrighted code to Vim and sell it. I would not be allowed to include that code in the official Vim, if the license doesn't give me permission to do this. I can still see the source code, because they must include it in their modified distribution. Again, in practice this will be hardly ever a problem. In case it really does happen, the code can probably be rewritten to avoid the copyrights. The source code usually provides enough hints to do that. That should be possible, since I require that someone making changes can't restrict the development of the official version. However, nobody really cares about what the official rules are. I disagree. Debian, and more specifically SPI, does not want to get sued for copyright infringment, or for contributory infringment which is a legal doctrine popular in the U.S. that says even if you aren't doing anything inherently wrong, we don't like you anyway and we're going to take you down. Ah, so Debian has written and signed permission from all copyright holders? Don't think so... I don't know how valid the copyright and license remarks in the files are. There are quite a few files without a license that makes clear copying is allowed. Only very few contributions have the name of the author in them and are considered part of the whole. Your existing copyright document implies that you are the sole copyright holder. If this isn't true, please correct it. Where does this say so? -- There are three kinds of people: Those who can count those who can't. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: Yes. Thus if you add code and put it under the GPL, then the GPL would apply to the whole (if I understand the GPL correctly). So the question is if this would cause a conflict with the Vim license, which would prohibit you from distributing this version. The point is about adding code that somebody else has written and put under the GPL. One conflict here is in the Vim license: Since the somebody else has not agreed that you can use their code in proprietary future Vim releases, I will not be allowed to distribute a Vim derivate where I have added it. I don't have a problem with that. It's just that it must be clear that this modified version of Vim (or compiled with a GPL'ed library) has more restrictions than the Vim license mentions, since the GPL applies as well (since it contaminates all the code it was compiled with). It's up to the distributor of the modified Vim to make this clear. Can't do this in the Vim license, it would be too confusing. One point needs clearing up: 3) c) mentions that the license used for the added parts must not restrict the official Vim releases. What I meant here is not the distribution, but making changes to the official Vim release. I think this text is better: c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you add, so long as it does not restrict others from changing the official version of Vim. This prevents someboy from adding a patented item and not permitting others to add a similar item to Vim. -- The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for breakfast, get up later. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Thomas Bushnell wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the license were GPL-compatible, I could license my changes under the GPL, and never talk to the Vim maintainer. However, one of the things that Bram wants to be able to do is relicense the whole thing under a proprietary license. This is exactly the sort of thing that the GPL is designed to prevent. So a GPL patch would restrict future official Vim distributions. Ah yes, I missed that last part. So it does seem to me that it is not GPL compatible, as long as it wants to reserve the right to include changes in future vim distributions, which themselves might be released under nonfree terms. But so long as changes are only included using the Vim license, would there be any problem? Thus isn't the license GPL-compatible for as long as no incompatible-licensed changes have been included? -- WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then? ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king! The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Branden Robinson wrote: Thanks very much for putting effort into this, Mr. Moolenaar. I know a lot of people don't find it easy to deal with paranoid license freaks. Thanks for taking a good look at the new text. I'll include most of your suggestions. You are also allowed to include executables that you made from the ^^^^^^ permitted distribute Does allowed and permitted mean something different? modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you add, so long as it does not restrict present or future official Vim distributions in any way. Uh, I think that asking people to use a license that does not restrict future official Vim distributions in any way is making an impossible demand. They cannot know what license may be placed on Vim in the future. Can I suggest this instead? You can choose what license to use for the changes you make, as long as it does not restrict the ability of anyone to comply with this license when they use a modified version of Vim that includes your changes. That's basically what you mean, right? I'm not sure. I would like to allow people to use any license for the new code that they write. After all, it's their work. But, at the same time I don't want this to result in bad things: - A proprietary version of Vim being made available (or sold) to a large audience. Thus someone slightly modifiying Vim and making money from it, without the possibility for me to get a chance to include the changes in the official release. - That it would not be possible to re-implement the same functionality and add it to the official Vim release (e.g., it should not be allowed to patent a specific solution). At the same time it should be possible for a company to make some changes which they want to keep a secret and use that changed version only within the company. The demand that the source code is available to everybody who uses this version should prevent the first of the above bad things from happening. The idea is that a company that would try to sell a modified version of Vim for $$$ doesn't want to include the source code. But the patent thing must be avoided by adding a remark to the license. That's why I added the does not restrict... part. This is the tricky part of the new license! Also, you regard the availability of Debian source packages as complying with c), right? I think that Debian always makes the source code available to me (in fact, to everybody), thus it would fall under a). -- I'm sure that I asked CBuilder to do a full install. Looks like I got a fool install, instead. Charles E Campbell, Jr, PhD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: draft for new Vim license
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Bushnell wrote: Ah yes, I missed that last part. So it does seem to me that it is not GPL compatible, as long as it wants to reserve the right to include changes in future vim distributions, which themselves might be released under nonfree terms. But so long as changes are only included using the Vim license, would there be any problem? From Vim's point of view, the entire GPL'ed code constitute an addition (a special case of a change), so it is all subject to the conditions you apply to changes. Yes. Thus if you add code and put it under the GPL, then the GPL would apply to the whole (if I understand the GPL correctly). So the question is if this would cause a conflict with the Vim license, which would prohibit you from distributing this version. I don't know the GPL well enough to judge about this. If you want to exempt, say, the addition of library code from your conditions on modifications in general, you need to add language in the license text that says so explicitly. (And doing so may not be a trivial task if you do not want to introduce loopholes that allow people to disguise essential part of their contributions as undisclosed library code). Compiling Vim with libraries is not considered changing Vim. This falls under the first item, generating an executable from an unmodified Vim. Only when you would add a library and call a function in it, you would be modifying Vim. So you could play tricks by adding a library that replaces a tactical function, which is called without changing Vim. Well, good luck with this unmodified version of Vim! :-) -- ARTHUR: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir knight. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. [pause] I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my Court of Camelot. [pause] You have proved yourself worthy; will you join me? [pause] You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy. BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Thomas Bushnell wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm not entirely clear on what can link to GPL libraries and when. Certainly the current Vim license is GPL-incompatible. (Even if we decided it's free after all, it's definitely not ok to link it against a GPLd library.) I don't see how you can call a GPL'ed library free if it's not allowed to compile it together with other software. -- FATHER:Who are you? PRINCE:I'm ... your son ... FATHER:Not you. LAUNCELOT: I'm ... er ... Sir Launcelot, sir. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: Ten million Linux users can't be wrong! If they think of themselves as Linux users, they are wrong already ;-). The system is GNU; Linux is the kernel. They are really GNU/Linux users. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more explanation. We had this discussion before. Most people call the whole thing Linux. It's just a name that people use. It's very common for people to use a name which isn't 100% right, but they do it anyway. If I ask one of my friends what is GNU he doesn't just think of the OS, GNU is more than that. If I ask him what is Linux he knows what I mean (although some people might ask me back do you mean the kernel or the OS?). -- GUARD #1: What -- a swallow carrying a coconut? ARTHUR:It could grip it by the husk! GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound coconut. The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be distributed with another license every person that contributed would have to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for the part he contributed under the GPL. Since there hardly ever is an explicit mentioning of what license is used for the contributed part, implicitly the currently active license applies. Well, I'm not a lawyer but that's how I interpret what I heard (it might actually be different for various countries). Wouldn't this apply to you changing the license *at all*? (For example, removing the send-changes-upstream clause.) Only when the intention of the license changes. So far I have only changed the wording. I do send the new text to the vim-dev maillist so that others can say what they think. If I add the option to distribute sources with a modified version, this is a real change and I need to find out if there is anybody who objects to it. By the way, are you subscribed to debian-legal? You're getting dropped from some CCs in subthreads. No, I'm not in debian-legal. -- Q: How does a UNIX Guru do Sex ? A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umount;sleep /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm not entirely clear on what can link to GPL libraries and when. Certainly the current Vim license is GPL-incompatible. (Even if we decided it's free after all, it's definitely not ok to link it against a GPLd library.) Alright, I'll file this. Bram, you might want to check out any other libraries Vim optionally links agaist. (This is another, completely different reason to make your license GPL-compatible.) I don't think that is my task. Perhaps it's just a problem for you, since you do the compiling. Anyway, I can't see how the GPL intentionally forbids compiling a library with it. That wouldn't be free. And you probably have the sources for the library available somewhere, so what would be the problem? -- [clop clop] GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there? ARTHUR:It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign of all England! GUARD #1: Pull the other one! The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
draft for new Vim license
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code. This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group of people and not having to provide a copy to the maintainer (that's me). For example, it would be possible to distribute a modified version of Vim within a company, so long as the sources are also available to the people using this modified version of Vim. Thus it's possible that the changes are kept as a secret within that company. Another possibility is that one person makes changes, passes this on (including source code) to someone else, and this person does not pass on the sources, but is willing to make them available when asked for. This makes it possible to pass on the responsibility to send the maintainer the source code to someone else (e.g., from an ad-hoc programmer to a distributor). I think this is quite liberal. Perhaps a bit too much? The text has gotten longer than I hoped for. And there might still be a hole somewhere, it's getting complicated. Thus this is really a draft, and I am not sure yet if I will want to use it for Vim. Also, since this changes the intention of the license, I will have to ask Vim contributors if they agree with this change. Let me know if you have suggestions for improvement. === SUMMARY Vim is Charityware. You can use and copy it as much as you like, but you are encouraged to make a donation for needy children in Uganda. Please see |iccf| below or visit the ICCF web site (these are mirrors): http://iccf-holland.org/ http://www.vim.org/iccf/ http://www.iccf.nl/ The Open Publication License applies to the Vim documentation, see |manual-copyright|. LICENSE DETAILS I) There are no restrictions on distributing unmodified copies of Vim except that they must include this license text. You can also distibute parts of Vim, likewise unrestricted except that they must include this license text. You are also allowed to include executables that you made from the unmodified Vim sources, plus your own usage examples and Vim scripts. II) It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with executables and/or source code, when the following four conditions are met: 1) This license text must be included unmodified. 2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified, at least in the version information and in the intro screen. 3) The modified Vim must be distributed in one of the following four ways: a) If you make changes to Vim, you must clearly mention in the distribution how to contact you. When the maintainer asks you (in any way) for a copy of the modified Vim you distributed, you must make the changes, including source code, available to the maintainer. The maintainer reserves the right to include the changes in the official version of Vim. What the maintainer will do with the changes and under what license they are distributed is negotiable. If there was no negotiation then this license also applies to the changes. The current maintainer is Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]. If this changes it will be announced in appropriate places (most likely vim.sf.net, www.vim.org and/or comp.editors). When it is completely impossible to contact the maintainer, the obligation to send him the changes ceases. Once the maintainer has confirmed that he received the changes they will not have to be send again. b) If you have received a modified Vim that was distributed as mentioned under a) you are allowed to further distribute it unmodified, as mentioned at I). For additional changes the text under a) applies again. c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you add, so long as it does not restrict present or future official Vim distributions in any way. d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned under c), you can distribute it without the source code for the changes if these conditions are met: - The license that applies to the changes does not disallow you to give the changes to the Vim maintainer and does not disallow the maintainer to include the changes in the official version of Vim. - You keep the changes for at least three years after last distributing the modified Vim. When the maintainer or someone who you distributed the modified Vim to asks you (in any way) for the changes within this period, you must
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:27:46PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: It also does not require that I send the changes to the maintainer. That's the sticking point. The GPL requires you to make the source code available to every user. That's quite bit stickier, in my opinion. For most companies that means they can't make money on their software. That's the main disadvantage of using the GPL and the main reason commercial software companies don't like the GPL. I always run into this problem when writing software which isn't supposed to be published. You can't use any parts of GPL software then. This seems to be an echo of a common misconception about the GPL. You are allowed to use GPL code in any manner that you see fit if you don't distribute (publish) the result; and you are never obliged by the GPL to distribute derived works to anyone, except that if you distribute derived binaries to someone you must also provide that person with the source code upon request. Companies that try to make money from software very often distribute their software. How else would they make money? Thus mostly they run into this rule of the GPL. The only situation it doesn't cause trouble is for using software that is used inside the company and doesn't go to customers. I have been making software for printers and copying machines. The software inside it is mostly hidden for the user. Still, when someone buys such a machine he gets the software as well. I suppose that, if the GPL applies to the embedded software, this still requires the company to make the source code available to the customer. Then a competetor would just have to buy a machine and discover all our tricks... The company doesn't want that, because keeping secrets is the best way to stay ahead of the competition. Thus as a result I was not allowed to use any GPL'ed software in these machines. That's the problem many companies run into. Only a few can afford to publish their source code (e.g., when you make the money on hardware you can give away the software for free). Note that I do like to have source code available for everything. And I would gladly publish every software I have ever written. But I have to make a living, and unfortunately that conflicts quite often. -- Ten million Linux users can't be wrong! /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Branden Robinson wrote: If there's nothing else objectionable to you about the GPL, then it sounds like one easy way out of this tedious thread would be just to GPL Vim and add a section to your copyright boilerplate: Alternative licensing terms are available; contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to negotiate terms. The problem with this is that it's not really fair towards people who help me developing Vim. I want it to be clear what can happen with the source code they contribute. Just mentioning that anything can happen with the license isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Also, I prefer people making changes to send me a copy directly. This stimulates the further development. The license is the right place to make this clear. Neither the GPL nor the Vim license explicitly require you to keep the changes around. Only in specific cases you might have to keep a copy as a consequence of choices you make. With the GPL you also get into this situation if you give someone only the executable. Then you need to allow the user to get the source code later, thus you need to keep a copy. Or just tell them where to find it at the time you give them the executable. If they don't avail themselves of that opportunity at that time, that's their problem, at least as long as you yourself don't cause that resource to become unavailable. That's the same for Vim: Just tell me where I can find the source code. The only difference I can see is that clause about restricting this to three years. No, you can always sue them in court. If they don't respond to the summons they won't be represented. Sue them for what? The damages they have done to the free software world? That doesn't make much sense. I don't think I would be able to sue them for anything but making the source code available to me. Don't want to waste money on that! I don't think a court would ever get involved. That's a good reason not to spend too much time on this license. It's only to avoid that someting bad will happen (like the guy that took Elvis and make Lemmy out of it, keeping the source code for himself). If you don't want to explain your point then it doesn't make sense to continue this discussion. You didn't mention the part of the DFSG that the Vim license would not meet. Debian reserves the right to reject licenses as non-free without having to cite a specific clause of the DFSG as basis. It is a lot friendlier if you just tell me what the problem is... This should be done sparingly, of course. However, read broadly, I can see most objectionable licensing terms (hypothetical and otherwise) as violating DFSG 1: Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. In practice, Debian appears to read this more like: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software. The license may not require a fee or consideration of any kind in exchange for the right to use, modify, or distribute the software. Consideration of any kind would include obvious things like the compulsion of copyright assignment in any changes (N.B., copyright law in some jurisdictions may already effectively do so, but that's irrelevant to the DFSG), but also things like registration or the compelled disclosure of information about the user of his system. To me it sounds like the GPL also breaks the rule, since it has many considerations for distributing the software (requiring to make the source code available, even when you distribute only binaries). Only public domain software would fully meet this rule... I suppose that's not how this was intended. This confuses me. - Bram -- GALAHAD: No. Look, I can tackle this lot single-handed! GIRLS: Yes, yes, let him Tackle us single-handed! Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem with this is that it's not really fair towards people who help me developing Vim. I want it to be clear what can happen with the source code they contribute. Just mentioning that anything can happen with the license isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Isn't that what you're doing with your you MUST allow me to decide what I do with your modifications? The difference is that it's explicitly mentioned. If a program is distributed under the GPL and there is no mentioning that the GPL might be removed some day and who decides whether or not this happens, it's very hard to actually remove the GPL then. People contributing to Vim know that I can negotiate about what happens with a modified version. I think that's fair. If it would say something like the maintainer can decide to remove the GPL for specific purposes, then it would be almost the same. But I'm not sure if the GPL allows adding this condition (and it's probably not right to say Vim is using the GPL then). That's the same for Vim: Just tell me where I can find the source code. That is not what the license says. And in any case, this still puts a burden on modifiers to make sure that their modifications will exist SOMEWHERE indefinitely. No, as soon as I have received the changes the conditions are met and that person can delete his copy. I think I already discussed the other items you mention, I don't want to repeat myself. Strange thing: When we started this discussion Debian said that the Vim lincense is free and the FSF didn't. Now it seems it's the other way around... You don't need a non-free license for that. Simply require that any distribution of modified binaries must *either* be accompanied with full source *or* follow whatever obnoxious rules you see fit to like. Then everybody would be happy. Are you saying that when I add the option that a modified version of Vim is accompanied by the changed source code, this would make the license free? If so, can you explain why this makes a difference? -- Back up my hard drive? I can't find the reverse switch! /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Richard Stallman wrote: The Vim license keeps an opening for a company to make a modified version of Vim and sell it, if he can agree with me on the conditions. This is always true. Regardless of what license you *state* in the program, you always have the possibility of agreeing to some other arrangement with some specific person or company. So you could, if you wish, release Vim under the GPL and then make special arrangements with a particular company. A number of free programs, including Qt and MySQL, are handled this way. Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be distributed with another license every person that contributed would have to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for the part he contributed under the GPL. Since there hardly ever is an explicit mentioning of what license is used for the contributed part, implicitly the currently active license applies. Well, I'm not a lawyer but that's how I interpret what I heard (it might actually be different for various countries). Besides the official things, I think it's fair to contributors to tell them what happens with their code. I wonder what would happen if I make Vim GPL and explicitly state that it's possible to negotiate another license with me. Perhaps I should mention that people contributing to Vim have to agree with this? That's getting a bit complicated. And it will be confusing, because many people will think that Vim is GPL'ed, even though there is an extra statement. And the GPL license is so complicated... Branden Robinson wrote: You are allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim when either of the following conditions are met: 1) You make your changes to the source code available to the general public, or to those to whom you distributed modified versions of Vim, with no restrictions on use, copying, modification, or distribution; or 2) You make your changes to the source code available to the Vim maintainer at no charge, and grant him or her a perpertual license to use, copy, modify and distribute your changes without restriction. The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL. If the number of changes is small (e.g., a modified Makefile) e-mailing the diffs will do. The e-mail address to be used is [EMAIL PROTECTED]. If you can go with this solution, I think it would be a good improvement. Alternative 1 could be replaced by the GPL which says similar things. I'll think about adding the alternative to provide the sources along with a modified version. But I think I would require to keep the same license, instead of saying with no restrictions -- LAUNCELOT leaps into SHOT with a mighty cry and runs the GUARD through and hacks him to the floor. Blood. Swashbuckling music (perhaps). LAUNCELOT races through into the castle screaming. SECOND SENTRY: Hey! Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Richard - That only talks about unmodified executables. So nothing seems to give permission for distributing executables of modified versions of Vim. It is important to give that permission explicitly. It was given implicitly, but I can clear that up to avoid confusion. It seems you started with a slightly older version of the license. Yes, that seems to be true. I took the new license that you sent me and clarified some of the words. The changes are not large. One change is that I deleted the statement about the license for the documentation. That's because the license for the documentation should be stated in the documentation itself, not here. This is also noted in the documentation. Well, this text is actually part of the documentation as well. I wanted to put a link here, so that people that look for help on copyright can find the text they are looking for. Another change is in the first paragraph of the license details. I stated explicitly that executables made from modified sources are ok to distribute. I find that a bit confusing, because the first paragraph is about unrestricted distribution. I rather keep the text about unrestricted distribution separate from the text about distribution of a modified version. Not everybody reads the text that careful, I want to avoid it being misinterpreted. Also for people who can't read English that well. Another very simple change is in the second paragraph: I replaced it with a copy of the modified version you distributed. This is to eliminate any chance of misunderstanding. The final change was in the last sentence, also to eliminate any chance of misunderstanding. What do you think of these suggestions? I have used them to update the text. This is the result (just the first two paragraphs, the rest didn't change): There are no restrictions on distributing unmodified copies of Vim. You can also distibute parts of Vim, but this license text must always be included. You are allowed to include executables that you made from the unmodified Vim sources, plus your own usage examples and Vim scripts. It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with executables and/or source code, when the following conditions are met. If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are encouraged to make it available to the maintainer, including the source code. When the maintainer asks (in any way) for a copy of the modified version you distributed, you must make your changes, including source code, available to him. The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL. If the number of changes is small (e.g., a modified Makefile) e-mailing the diffs will do. The e-mail address to be used is [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Bram -- FIRST HEAD: Oh! quick! get the sword out I want to cut his head off. THIRD HEAD: Oh, cut your own head off. SECOND HEAD: Yes - do us all a favour. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Thomas Bushnell wrote: Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with executables and/or source code, when the following conditions are met. If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are encouraged to make it available to the maintainer, including the source code. When the maintainer asks (in any way) for a copy of the modified version you distributed, you must make your changes, including source code, available to him. The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL. If the number of changes is small (e.g., a modified Makefile) e-mailing the diffs will do. The e-mail address to be used is [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is still no good. You might not have a copy anymore of the modified version that you distributed. If this is so, then there are these possibilities: - Nobody has a copy of this modified version. Then it doesn't exist and the license doesn't apply. - Someone still has a copy. Then the person that made the changes should be able to retrieve it and send the maintainer a copy. - Someone still has a copy of the executable but not the sources. That's annoying, the person making the changes is responsible for this not happening. - The person who did the changes doesn't know who still has a copy. That's unlikely to happen, since the maintainer apparently was able to locate the mofified copy. - The person who did the changes has died. No idea what happens then, hopefully we will never encounter this situation. I explicitly want to keep the person who makes the changes responsible for being able to send me these changes. I don't want end-users to become responsible for this (they might not even know about the changes). Also note that when this would really happen, there is no actual penalty that can be applied to the person who did the changes, since no damage was done. -- Linux is just like a wigwam: no Windows, no Gates and an Apache inside. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Thomas - Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this is so, then there are these possibilities: - Nobody has a copy of this modified version. Then it doesn't exist and the license doesn't apply. Wrong, the paragraph says that if you distribute a modified version, then you must provide the changes to the vim maintainer upon request forever. No, the license doesn't say forever. - Someone still has a copy. Then the person that made the changes should be able to retrieve it and send the maintainer a copy. If I make a change, and then distribute to John Doe, and then destroy my copy, and the vim maintainer comes to me, I am obliged to give him a copy of my changes. John Doe may be long since unreachable. It might be ten years later. So once I ever distribute a modified version, I must personally keep a copy forever. That makes it not DFSG-free. The easiest way to avoid this is to send me the changes before destroying them. Then you no longer need to keep a copy. And yes, if you distribute a modified version of Vim, the person making the changes is responsible for making those changes available. The GPL also requires it in this situation, since the person you gave the modified version may request a copy of the sources. Quote: You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you provide the source code with the modified program, but the receiver loses it, he may ask for it again. It's not clear to me if the GPL requires if the source code must still be available then. Would be hard to prove that you did supply the source code at all. Anyway, this quickly goes into an irrelevant direction. - The person who did the changes doesn't know who still has a copy. That's unlikely to happen, since the maintainer apparently was able to locate the mofified copy. Except that it doesn't work like that. The maintainer might, for example, send out a massive spam to the entire net and say if you have made any changes, send them now. That is irrelevant, because everybody can ignore a message that isn't personal. Can't blame anybody who would not respond. - The person who did the changes has died. No idea what happens then, hopefully we will never encounter this situation. Why, because people don't die? People die, go missing, vanish, close up shop, etc., all the time. Sometimes computers even fail when huge buildings fall to the ground due to airliner impact. This is becoming a bit rediculous... I explicitly want to keep the person who makes the changes responsible for being able to send me these changes. I don't want end-users to become responsible for this (they might not even know about the changes). As long as it is a requirement for *anyone* it's not DFSG-free software. Well, this was discussed before and the Vim license was considered DFSG-free software then. We were only changing the precise wordings, not the intention of the license, so this would still be the same. You better explain exactly why this license would make Vim not be DFSG-free software and what has changed since the last time. - Bram -- GALAHAD: No look, really, this isn't nescess ... PIGLET: We must examine you. GALAHAD: There's nothing wrong with ... that. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Thomas - The GPL does not require that you keep the source code forever. When I give a copy to my friend, I have finished all my responsibilities. I have no requirement to keep a copy, or know how to get in touch with my friend next year. The Vim license also doesn't require you keep the source code forever. It also does not require that I send the changes to the maintainer. That's the sticking point. The GPL requires you to make the source code available to every user. That's quite bit stickier, in my opinion. For most companies that means they can't make money on their software. That's the main disadvantage of using the GPL and the main reason commercial software companies don't like the GPL. I always run into this problem when writing software which isn't supposed to be published. You can't use any parts of GPL software then. I do want to allow this with the Vim sources (after negotiating this with me). If you provide the source code with the modified program, but the receiver loses it, he may ask for it again. It's not clear to me if the GPL requires if the source code must still be available then. Would be hard to prove that you did supply the source code at all. Anyway, this quickly goes into an irrelevant direction. Not in the GPL. But it's not irrelevant--it's precisely the point. The GPL does not require you to keep the thing around potentially forever just in case. Your license does. Whether that's your intention or not is quite beside the point: we must follow the license, and not what you say the intention is. Neither the GPL nor the Vim license explicitly require you to keep the changes around. Only in specific cases you might have to keep a copy as a consequence of choices you make. With the GPL you also get into this situation if you give someone only the executable. Then you need to allow the user to get the source code later, thus you need to keep a copy. Um, no. You don't want to consider these cases, but they are precisely the cases that an organization like Debian must consider. Upstream sources of software go away all the time. Debian developers go away. People vanish. When someone vanishes I can't ask them for the changes, right? Or hit them on the head because he didn't follow the rules of the license. So this is irrelevant. Well, this was discussed before and the Vim license was considered DFSG-free software then. We were only changing the precise wordings, not the intention of the license, so this would still be the same. You better explain exactly why this license would make Vim not be DFSG-free software and what has changed since the last time. I can't address the past. If you don't want to explain your point then it doesn't make sense to continue this discussion. You didn't mention the part of the DFSG that the Vim license would not meet. - Bram -- DINGO: Wicked wicked Zoot ... she is a bad person and she must pay the penalty. And here in Castle Anthrax, we have but one punishment ... you must tie her down on a bed ... and spank her. Come! GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking! Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are not allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim when you are not willing to make the source code available to the maintainer or do not want to let him decide what to do with your changes. This is non-free according to the normal consensus interpretation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As the minimum, it should be possible for someone to distribute a modified version - as binaries and source code together - to a few (or many) friends and then never touch the program again, possibly deleting it from one's computer completely. I don't see this as a relevant problem. The person that distributed the modified version can ask the people he gave the source code to send me a copy. So he can still delete his own copy (although that's unlikely to happen anyway). Unless all copies are deleted, including the binaries, then there is nothing to worry about (the modifications no longer exist). If someone deletes the sources and keeps the binaries he is in trouble, and that's how we want it, right? The simplest solution for the person making the changes is that he sends me the modified sources just before deleting them. And that's a nice way to allow me have a look at them and perhaps include part of them in the distributed version. I like the idea that the person making the changes is responsible for what happens with these changes. We can't demand people that get a copy of a modified version to be forced to send me a copy. And I don't like the idea of a modified version of Vim being distributed in a closed circle of people anyway (it's still allowed though, at least until I find out about the existence of it). A quick fix to make the license terms free would be to offer an option to change the licence to GPL. The unconditional source disclosure rules in the GPL do a pretty good job of making the kinds of abuse you probably seek protection against unworkable in practise. The problem of the GPL is that it doesn't allow further distribution of a program without providing the sources, and thus it's not all that free (from the point of view of the programmer). The Vim license keeps an opening for a company to make a modified version of Vim and sell it, if he can agree with me on the conditions. Thus the Vim license offers more freedom for people making software (and provide a way to make money). And if you want to publish your changed sources, that's allowed anyway, thus users have the same freedom as with the GPL. - Bram -- The greatest lies of all time: (1) The check is in the mail. (2) We have a really challenging assignment for you. (3) I love you. (4) All bugs have been fixed. (5) This won't hurt a bit. (6) Honey, I just need to debug this program and be home in 5 minutes. (7) I have just sent you an e-mail about that. (8) Of course I'll respect you in the morning. (9) I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Richard - Looking again at the Vim license, it is not clear whether it permits distribution of executables of modified versions of Vim. I hope this is permitted, since otherwise it would be rather a disaster. What is your intention? Distributing a modified version of Vim (sources and/or executables) is certainly allowed. I don't see why you would think it's not allowed. The words explicitly state the right to distribute modified sources, but they don't seem to talk about distribution modified of executables. So I was not sure whether that is permitted. You don't modify executables, you modify the sources and recompile. Is it unclear somewhere that executables made from modified sources can be distributed (with the conditions about making the source code available)? I've made some changes in the Vim license text, attempting to state the same conditions but in clearer language. Here's the result. What do you think? Have I expressed the conditions that you want? It seems you started with a slightly older version of the license. The one I'm using for Vim 6.0 does not have the part about sending me a copy of a CD-ROM (I have plenty! :-). I have gone over your version and updated the license a bit. I'll include it below. I intend to keep the part about sending me diffs, because this is what most people will want to know. And I do prefer to receive changes as diffs. I'll also send a copy of this to the debian list. They made a few remarks in the past, I'm sure they want to check these changes. See http://www.moolenaar.net/ for the Vim+ICCF calendar. Happy 2002! - Bram SUMMARY Vim is Charityware. You can use and copy it as much as you like, but you are encouraged to make a donation for needy children in Uganda. Please see |iccf| below or visit the ICCF web site (these are mirrors): http://iccf-holland.org/ http://www.vim.org/iccf/ http://www.iccf.nl/ The Open Publication License applies to the Vim documentation, see |manual-copyright|. LICENSE DETAILS There are no restrictions on distributing unmodified copies of Vim. Parts of Vim may also be distributed, but this text must always be included. You are allowed to include executables that you made from the unmodified Vim sources, plus your own usage examples and Vim scripts. If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are encouraged to make it available to the maintainer, including the source code. When the maintainer asks for it (in any way) you must make your changes, including source code, available to him. The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL. If the number of changes is small (e.g., a modified Makefile) e-mailing the diffs will do. The e-mail address to be used is [EMAIL PROTECTED] The maintainer reserves the right to include any changes in the official version of Vim. What the maintainer will do with your changes is negotiable. You are not allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim when you are not willing to make the source code available to the maintainer or do not want to let him decide what to do with your changes. The current maintainer is Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]. If this changes, it will be announced in appropriate places (most likely vim.sf.net, www.vim.org and/or comp.editors). When it is completely impossible to contact the maintainer, the obligation to send him your changes ceases. It is not allowed to remove this license from the distribution of the Vim sources or parts of it. You may use this license for a previous Vim release instead of the license that came with it, at your option. === end of license === -- A cow comes flying over the battlements, lowing aggressively. The cow lands on GALAHAD'S PAGE, squashing him completely. Monty Python and the Holy Grail PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\ ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim ))) \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
