Modifications under Different Terms than Original (was: Re: why is graphviz package non-free?)
[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the original, then it isn't DFSG-Free. Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to do this; I'd never contribute to such a work. I can't come up with any strong argument of why it's non-free, though (distasteful really isn't enough), and nobody else is doing so, either--the only argument I've seen is that it's a payment to the upstream author, but that's not true in the above case. I agree this seems quite distasteful. However, as you note, it doesn't seem like a payment to upstream. Let's compare two clauses: If you make modifications to this software, you must release those modifications under the MIT X11 License. (Clause A) vs. If you make modifications to this software, you must assign copyright of those modifications to AUTHOR. AUTHOR grants everyone a license to use these modifications under the license this program is distributed. (Clause B) Clause B, I think, we'd all consider a payment: In exchange for the privelege of making modifications, you must give the author something of value. However, clause A and clause B have the exact same effect, as far as what rights people have with the program, AFAICT. I don't believe two clauses which have the exact same practicle effect should have different freenesses. I think that while (A) does not violate the letter requiring no payment, it does violate the spirit. In addition, I have one other objection: In setting a particular person (or company, or whatever) with special rights over the program, it discriminates, also in violation of the DFSG. Copyright law certainly gives the copyright holder more rights than anyone else; however, these clauses ensure that only a certain copyright holder --- the original's copyright holder --- can ever have that status, no matter how significant my patch. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Modifications under Different Terms than Original
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: [Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...] :) Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the original, then it isn't DFSG-Free. Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to do this; I'd never contribute to such a work. I can't come up with any strong argument of why it's non-free, though (distasteful really isn't enough), and nobody else is doing so, either--the only argument I've seen is that it's a payment to the upstream author, but that's not true in the above case. I agree this seems quite distasteful. However, as you note, it doesn't seem like a payment to upstream. Let's compare two clauses: If you make modifications to this software, you must release those modifications under the MIT X11 License. (Clause A) vs. If you make modifications to this software, you must assign copyright of those modifications to AUTHOR. AUTHOR grants everyone a license to use these modifications under the license this program is distributed. (Clause B) Clause B, I think, we'd all consider a payment: In exchange for the privelege of making modifications, you must give the author something of value. However, clause A and clause B have the exact same effect, as far as what rights people have with the program, AFAICT. I don't believe two clauses which have the exact same practicle effect should have different freenesses. I think that while (A) does not violate the letter requiring no payment, it does violate the spirit. Actually, A violates the precise letter of the DFSG: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. The MIT X11 License is not the same terms as the license of the original software, so clause A does clearly violate both the letter and spirit of DFSG3. In addition, I have one other objection: In setting a particular person (or company, or whatever) with special rights over the program, it discriminates, also in violation of the DFSG. Copyright law certainly gives the copyright holder more rights than anyone else; however, these clauses ensure that only a certain copyright holder --- the original's copyright holder --- can ever have that status, no matter how significant my patch. True; it also fails the no-discrimination requirement. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Modifications under Different Terms than Original
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:18 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote: Actually, A violates the precise letter of the DFSG: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. The MIT X11 License is not the same terms as the license of the original software, so clause A does clearly violate both the letter and spirit of DFSG3. Agreed entirely. -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpUg212ma3AH.pgp Description: PGP signature
