Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:16:53PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms. I don't understand, can you elaborate please? The word This referred to the quoted material which you chose to ignore. If you have any more specific questions, let me know. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:16:53PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms. I don't understand, can you elaborate please? The word This referred to the quoted material which you chose to ignore. I didn't chose to ignore This. I avoided quoting a large chunk of text that didn't relate directly to my question. Since you want everything spelled out: can you explain what do you mean by the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms, please? I'm obviously missing some subtle point since you seem to be saying that this is false in general. -- Marcelo | This signature was automatically generated with [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Signify v1.07. For this and other cool products, | check out http://www.debian.org/
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 08:54:56PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: I didn't chose to ignore This. I avoided quoting a large chunk of text that didn't relate directly to my question. Hmm.. but you didn't give me a good enough of an idea of what you did understand to let me pin down what it was that you wanted elaborated. However, you've given me a pretty solid idea this time around, so I think I understand what you're asking. Since you want everything spelled out: can you explain what do you mean by the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms, please? I'm obviously missing some subtle point since you seem to be saying that this is false in general. Let's imagine: [1] you're not the copyright owner for some code [2] you want to use that code in a GPLed program you're working on. Now, if the terms of the license on that code meet the requirements of the GPL, ensuring that the code is available under those terms is a no-op. On the other hand, if the terms of the license on that code do not meet the requirements of the GPL, then ensuring that the code is available under those terms requires dealing with the copyright holder. It's true that one solution, in this case, involves a legal agreement with the old copyright holder, making you the new copyright holder -- then you can release the code under whatever terms you like. A more common solution involves the copyright holder making the code available under a mutually acceptable license. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:54:22AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Alice wrote foo.c, licensed under the GNU X11 license. I've never seen a GNU X11 license, nor is one listed at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html. There's what they claim is the MIT X11 license, which doesn't match the X11 license on xfree86.org's website. I choose to call that the GNU X11 license to make it clear what I'm talking about. Bob did last time and misrepresenting her ability to sublicense works based on foo.c and infringing on Alice's copyright, or she's not abiding by the terms of the GPL (ie, not licensing the work as a whole in the proper way), and thus infringing on Bob's copyright. This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Of course it doesn't: you cut out the beginning of the sentence: If not, she's either doing the same thing as Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) pgpVtejA2yaNi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:14:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s196.html (s196 of the Copyright Act for Australia) It's pretty clear that this context has to do with the transfer of ownership on a copyright (which must be accompanied by a written signature), which is different from the grant of copyright to a non-owner. On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Carol writes baz.c, and builds /usr/bin/baz by statically linking each of foo.o, bar.o, and baz.o. This time, Carol has to abide by both the GPL and the X11 license. The GPL says she must cause [the work] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this license. That doesn't require her to license baz.c like that, but it does require her to license /usr/bin/baz like that. As this is a derived work based on foo.c, the question is, can she do this? If not, she's either doing the same thing as Bob did last time and misrepresenting her ability to sublicense works based on foo.c and infringing on Alice's copyright, or she's not abiding by the terms of the GPL (ie, not licensing the work as a whole in the proper way), and thus infringing on Bob's copyright. This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms. This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:06:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Of course it doesn't: you cut out the beginning of the sentence: If not, she's either doing the same thing as Indeed (oops, thanks). Thanks, -- Raul
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: There's what they claim is the MIT X11 license, which doesn't match the X11 license on xfree86.org's website. I choose to call that the GNU X11 license to make it clear what I'm talking about. This is the MIT X11 license: : Copyright 1989 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology : : Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its : documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, : provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that : both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in : supporting documentation, and that the name of MIT not be used in : advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software : without specific prior written permission. M.I.T. makes no : representation about the suitability of this software for any purpose. : It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. This is the Open Group's license: : Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a : copy of this software and associated documentation files (the : Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including : without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, : distribute, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons : to whom the Software is furnished to do so, provided that the above : copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of : the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this : permission notice appear in supporting documentation. This is the XFree86 license: : Copyright (C) 1994-2001 The XFree86 Project, Inc. All Rights Reserved. : : Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a : copy of this software and associated documentation files (the : Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including : without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, : distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to : permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to : the following conditions: : : The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included : in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The FSF site calls the Open Group's license the MIT X11 License. -- Marcelo | Too many people want to *have written*. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms. I don't understand, can you elaborate please? -- Marcelo | Death was Nature's way of telling you to slow down. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Strata)
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 10:20:35PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: [one dictionary definition deleted] A license is a grant of permission from whoever's authorized to grant that permission. I know license is a word in the dictionary. And, in particular, it has the right meaning for what we're trying to talk about. I'm not following why you don't want to use that word, when it seems to be clearly the right one for what we're dicussing. It's the GNU General Public _License_ after all. However, at least to my knowledge within the US, a license that it is not a fundamental legal building block, A license is a grant of permission. We're talking about grants of permission, so license is the right word. There's no need to make this harder than it is. such as your belief that a work you must have permission to sublicense a work in order for it to be GPL compatible. I don't think I've claimed that yet, actually. I'm not sure I will, either. the courts may interpret it as a unilateral grant of permissions related to *your* copyright interests only, and (more likely) they may interpret it the offer phase of the formation of a contract. Ask yourself this, if somebody violates the license, what law creates the private right action by which you could sue them to enforce it?!? You can't violate a license, you can only not abide by it. I don't see such a distinction either in any dialect of English that I am familiar with or in terms of any legal definition. It's not a crime to violate a license. Here: I hereby give you a license to breathe air, as long as you pay me $50. You can choose to not abide by that license (by, eg, breathing without paying me $50), but that doesn't make it illegal. If we'd made a contract that only allowed you to breathe if you paid me $50 (there'd need to be some other consideration for you though for it to be a valid contract), then if you didn't abide by that contract, you'd have violated the contract and be liable for damages and such. Perhaps if you would make up out some examples that have nothing to do with legal issues, that might help clarify you semantic argument. Not abiding by something doesn't have any negative connotatons -- you're not particularly going to get punished. Violating something has the connotation that you're doing something bad and will be punished, OTOH. So I'm inclined to think talking about violating licenses is likely to just lead to misconceptions, rather than clearing them up, especially when a work might be available under multiple licenses. If, in so doing, you're abiding by some other license you've been granted on the given work, that's all well and good. If you're not, you're breaking copyright, and can be sued by the copyright holder, and possibly others on the copyright holder's behalf. By breaking, I assume you mean infringing (as opposed to say, invalidating). I don't think you're clear on who could so whom Who can sue whom is a matter of local law, and isn't a matter that particularly interests me, to be honest. The only thing that's really interesting is if anyone can sue me, or if no one can. If Alice gives a copy of some program she wrote to Bob, with a license that lets him sublicense as he wishes (possibly under certain conditions like retaining her name and copyright statement), and he then sublicenses that to Carol under the GPL (but abiding by Alice's conditions), and Carol then uploads to Debian, neither Carol nor Debian can be sued, as long as they abide by the GPL. Let's apply that to the example of the X11 copyright from the FSF web page, which does not specify a permission to sublicense. 1. You put a file covered by that copyright into your GPL'ed work and distribute that resulting derivative work. Do you claim that is illegal? If so, whose copyright are you infringing who has not given permission to do this? One possibility: Alice wrote foo.c, licensed under the GNU X11 license. Bob wrote bar.c, and distributes FooBar.tgz, including foo.c and bar.c, and distributes the entire work under the GPL. He doesn't need to obey the GPL (he holds the copyright to foo.c) and thus can't violate it, so it doesn't matter, so the only possiblity here is if the GNU X11 copyright is violated. It might be if Bob claims to have sublicensed the work, and isn't allowed to. It's not clear to me whether that is allowed or not. A better possibility: Alice wrote foo.c, licensed under the GNU X11 license. Bob wrote bar.c, licensed under the GNU GPL. Carol writes baz.c, and builds /usr/bin/baz by statically linking each of foo.o, bar.o, and baz.o. This time, Carol has to abide by both the GPL and the X11 license. The GPL says she must cause [the work] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this license. That doesn't require her to license baz.c
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Alice wrote foo.c, licensed under the GNU X11 license. I've never seen a GNU X11 license, nor is one listed at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html. Bob wrote bar.c, licensed under the GNU GPL. Carol writes baz.c, and builds /usr/bin/baz by statically linking each of foo.o, bar.o, and baz.o. This time, Carol has to abide by both the GPL and the X11 license. To avoid discussion of the fair use issue, I'll assume that carol is distributing /usr/bin/baz to millions of people. The GPL says she must cause [the work] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this license. That would be the source tree for /usr/bin/baz (and, thus, builds of /usr/bin/baz). That doesn't require her to license baz.c like that, but it does require her to license /usr/bin/baz like that. Essentially, yes. As this is a derived work based on foo.c, the question is, can she do this? And, if not, what clause of the grant of copyright on foo.c is she violating? Bob did last time and misrepresenting her ability to sublicense works based on foo.c and infringing on Alice's copyright, or she's not abiding by the terms of the GPL (ie, not licensing the work as a whole in the proper way), and thus infringing on Bob's copyright. This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. * * * * * In particular, AIUI, rms and the FSF believe the last clause from the OpenSSL license makes that license GPL incompatible. To quote Aaron Lehmann (giving advice from an unnamed friend) from a few weeks ago on this list: ] * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available ] * version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this ] * code cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution ] * licence [including the GNU Public Licence.] That idea is probably based on the legal idea that there must be some legally valid purpose to all language in a legal document. And, it its possible to read that sentence as if OpenSSL can't be published in any work with a derivative copyright (unless that derivative copyright license is OpenSSL's). Thanks, -- Raul
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
Hi.. thank you both for your replies. Unfortunately the two responses gave opposite answers, so I'm no less confused, but at least I'm feeling a little less embarrassed about my confusion now :). Anyway, I shall continue to wait and see what other thoughts are posted. Thanks, Ben. -- Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://baasil.humbug.org.au/bab/ Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:33:12AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote: Hi.. thank you both for your replies. Unfortunately the two responses gave opposite answers, so I'm no less confused, but at least I'm feeling a little less embarrassed about my confusion now :). The GPL requires derived works of GPLed software to be distributed under the GPL. But it only becomes a derived work when it gets linked. So, if you're just distributing source code, you can distribute it under whatever license you like; but if you're distributing executables, you need to distribute them under the GPL. So, for your library, you're effectively distributing it under the GPL for normal use, but you've allowed other people to rip out any parts that may be independent of the underlying GPLed library, and reuse them with non-free/non-GPL software under the terms of the LGPL if they want. Basically, you can only safely link GPLed and GPL compatible software together, and the result ends up being just GPLed. OTOH, you can always do this. GPL-compatible licenses include anything which basically allows relicensing under the terms of the GPL. So public domain, You can use and modifiy and distribute modified or unmodified copies, without restriction, LGPL and GPL licenses are all fine, pretty much. AIUI, IANAL, IANrms, etc. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 03:52:26AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: Suppose you create a GPL'ed program and it includes a file whose copyright is owned by MIT and was covered by the (GPL-compatible) MIT X11 terms. Someone else could still extract that (unmodified) file from the GPL'ed source tree and use it under the MIT X11 terms in some GPL-violating way, and not be infringing any copyrights. You have no copyright ownership of that file, and MIT has already given permission for everyone to use it under the MIT X11 terms. You know, I think we've been looking at this wrong. Saying you can't relicense is just wrong. You can relicense things quite often, that's how lots of proprietry software ends up getting distributed (you license your technology to someone, they include it in their product and sublicense it out to their customers). It's why licenses include the restriction that you can't sublicense. What you've really got is a file of code, copyright by someone, that you are able to use/modify/distribute under either of two licenses: MIT/X11 as licensed to you by the original author, and the GPL, as sublicensed to you (under the terms of the MIT/X11 license -- check it out, it specifically grants you permission to do this) by whoever included it in whatever other program. Your right to copy a piece of content comes from the permissions granted to you by the owners of its copyrights, not by intermediaries who have no actual copyright interest or authorization to act as an agent for the copyright owners. That's only true if the original copyright holders didn't specifically give you permission to sublicense in their copyright license though... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) pgpLMytECFYpV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:00:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The GPL requires derived works of GPLed software to be distributed under the GPL. But it only becomes a derived work when it gets linked. Not only. It becomes a derived work when it gets modified. Linking counts because of the idea that the binary is a translation of the original copyrighted source. -- Raul
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:05:51AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
You know, I think we've been looking at this wrong.
Saying you can't relicense is just wrong. [...]
License is not a completely well defined term, and, more
importantly, it is not a legislated system by which you can directly
get the courts to enforce something. The fact that you see that
terminology widely used does not change that. Copyright owners of
many persuasions like the term because it suggests a broader monopoly
that copyright actually conveys.
From dict:
License \License\ (l[imac]sens), n. [Written also {licence}.]
[F. licence, L. licentia, fr. licere to be permitted, prob.
orig., to be left free to one; akin to linquere to leave. See
{Loan}, and cf. {Illicit}, {Leisure}.]
1. Authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act;
especially, a formal permission from the proper
authorities to perform certain acts or to carry on a
certain business, which without such permission would be
illegal; a grant of permission; as, a license to preach,
to practice medicine, to sell gunpowder or intoxicating
liquors.
[1913 Webster]
A license is a grant of permission from whoever's authorized to grant
that permission.
If you write copyright permissions and call it a license,
What else are you meant to call it?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s196.html
(s196 of the Copyright Act for Australia)
the courts may interpret it as a unilateral grant of permissions
related to *your* copyright interests only, and (more likely) they may
interpret it the offer phase of the formation of a contract. Ask
yourself this, if somebody violates the license, what law creates
the private right action by which you could sue them to enforce it?!?
You can't violate a license, you can only not abide by it. If, in so
doing, you're abiding by some other license you've been granted on the
given work, that's all well and good. If you're not, you're breaking
copyright, and can be sued by the copyright holder, and possibly others
on the copyright holder's behalf. (If the copyright holder's dead, the
estate of the copyright holder could sue, eg; the Oz copyright act has
specific provisions if the author has exclusively licensed the work to
another: in particular *both* parties have to sue, the author can't do
that alone, nor can the licensee. A brief skim and grep didn't show up
anything corresponding as far as public licenses are concerned)
Your right to copy a piece of content comes from the
permissions granted to you by the owners of its copyrights, not by
intermediaries who have no actual copyright interest or authorization
to act as an agent for the copyright owners.
That's only true if the original copyright holders didn't specifically
give you permission to sublicense in their copyright license though...
What actual legal act are you referring to when you say
sublicense?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ grep -in sublicense
/usr/share/doc/xfree86-common/copyright
20:the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
54:to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
84:to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
209:lish, distribute, sublicense and/or sell copies of Subject Software (defined
275:cure such breach within 30 days of the breach. Any sublicense to the Subject
277:License absent termination by the terms of such sublicense. Provisions
which,
405:lish, distribute, sublicense and/or sell copies of Subject Software (defined
470:cure such breach within 30 days of the breach. Any sublicense to the Subject
472:License absent termination by the terms of such sublicense. Provisions
which,
You might have to go far enough afield to be looking under laws related
to power of attorney or something to find the legal basis for the ability
to sublicense.
If you visit
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses,
and look at the list of GPL compatible licenses, and click on the
link labelled The X11 license, you will notice that the word
sublicense DOES NOT APPEAR in the X11 license,
I have no idea why the FSF's site would have a different text for the X11
license than the Debian pckage or the xfree86 website.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
pgplLHjaBIvzB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Burton wrote: 1. Can I package an LGPL library foo that links with a GPL library bar? Only if the GPL library is not required for basic operation of the LGPL library. This might be because there are non-GPL versions of the GPL library with looser licenses, or because the GPL library only provides optional features. Otherwise the LGPL library needs to be under the regular GPL. Just because something is a library, doesn't mean you can put it under the LGPL when it would otherwise have to be full GPL. If the two libraries just happen to be together, and the LGPL library will use the GPL library only if it is available, then programs that use only the LGPL library are not affected. 2. If so, is it appropriate to put a notice in the copyright file for foo that this library links with a GPL library and thus any software that links with foo must be GPL-compatible? In general you should not need to do this. Either the library depends on the GPL library (in which case it has to be full GPL) or it does not (in which case it does not matter). I suppose if you had an application program that required the optional GPL-only features from the GPL library, but accessed them through the otherwise LGPL library, that would probably require it to be GPL also.
Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
I am not a lawyer, so please do not rely on this as legal advice. I am also not a Debianite, but I will cc this message to debian-legal so they can avoid duplication of effort. Okay, I've gone through debian-legal archives, I've looked on the FSF site and the summary is that I'm rather confused. 1. Can I package an LGPL library foo that links with a GPL library bar? Yes. The restrictions of the LGPL are a subset of the restrictions of the GPL, even when it comes to the right to add remaining restrictions of the GPL (due to section 3 of the LGPL), so it does not violate section 6 of the GPL. However, as your allude to in your second question, if your library requires the GPL'ed library, the net effect will be almost the same as if your library were GPL'ed. It will only be legal to link GPL-compatible programs with your library (this includes more than just GPL'ed programs, 2. If so, is it appropriate to put a notice in the copyright file for foo that this library links with a GPL library and thus any software that links with foo must be GPL-compatible? As a matter of politeness and good documentation, yes. Adam J. Richter __ __ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034 +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America fax +1 408 261-6631 Free Software For The Rest Of Us.
GPL/LGPL confusion
Okay, I've gone through debian-legal archives, I've looked on the FSF site and the summary is that I'm rather confused. 1. Can I package an LGPL library foo that links with a GPL library bar? 2. If so, is it appropriate to put a notice in the copyright file for foo that this library links with a GPL library and thus any software that links with foo must be GPL-compatible? Please CC me on replies; I'm not subscribed. Thanks - Ben. -- Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://baasil.humbug.org.au/bab/ Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
