Re: draft for new Vim license
If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to distribute binaries supplied by the author. Not necessarily--these things are not as rigid as symbolic logic. It's a matter of what intention the words imply, which would depend on the whole wording of the license. I think we are also having a small but significant miscommunication. I do not say that linking is `changing'--those words could mean various things, so I would not want to say yes or no to those words. I spoke in regard to a specific scenario, where the Vim release does not link with GPM, but you arrange to link it with GPM anyway. That does seem to entail changing the program. Perhaps I did not say this clearly enough.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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. If you're happy with GPL version 2, then you can make the license GPL-compatible now. 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. If GPM says version 2 of the GPL or any later version, which is what we recommend, then the new version will apply as soon as it is officially approved. (This is just like the statement you use saying that users can follow newer Vim licenses for older versions of Vim.) 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. This seems to work.
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
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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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.
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
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:19 +0100 Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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!). Another way of looking at is that the company can distribute binaries within the company itself - they still have to provide source to the employees who ask for it(not that they can't strongarm and threaten job loss or whatever for those who do). The source must follow where binaries go - if the company makes sure no binaries are sent to the outside world, it can keep the source inside the company - almost always just what they want. I don't think it's required to think of the company as a single licensee, though I imagine in many countries that would be a valid statement if those distributing the binaries and receiving them were considered part of that whole. -- .--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=. /David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \ \Clan Barclay Either action, or death./ `---==-=-=-=-===-=---=--=' pgp5yjiQ7YVe2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:04:02PM -0700, 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. If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to distribute binaries supplied by the author. (Not putting the change-to-GPL clause under the modification section would appear to avoid this altogether, however.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 12:26:19PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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. Thus I would think an unmodified Vim can be distributed under the GPL, so long as you don't modify it. would have to be the most confusing sentence I've read in weeks, and the context isn't helping, either. :) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to distribute binaries supplied by the author. Quite right. I have no idea what those licenses mean, but I've generally only seen them when the author in fact is supplying binaries.
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to distribute binaries supplied by the author. Quite right. I have no idea what those licenses mean, but I've generally only seen them when the author in fact is supplying binaries. What they *mean* seems fairly obvious to me: you can recompile the source (presumably for different architectures or library versions), and distribute those binaries, but you can't modify the source and distribute binaries based on that. (I personally detest this type of thing, and all licenses that release source but don't let you use it properly. It strikes me as people trying to get the benefits of open source for themselves--people submitting patches, finding bugs in the source for you--without giving back anything at all to the OSS community.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to distribute binaries supplied by the author. Quite right. I have no idea what those licenses mean, but I've generally only seen them when the author in fact is supplying binaries. What they *mean* seems fairly obvious to me: you can recompile the source (presumably for different architectures or library versions), and distribute those binaries, but you can't modify the source and distribute binaries based on that. Except to say you can only distribute unmodified binaries makes no sense if there are no binaries to begin with. Compiling source to a binary *is* a modification, it *is* the creation of a derived work. Your interpretation would say that when the license says you may not distribute modified binaries it means you may not distribute binaries made from modified source, which is a quite different thing.
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 07:10:30PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: What they *mean* seems fairly obvious to me: you can recompile the source (presumably for different architectures or library versions), and distribute those binaries, but you can't modify the source and distribute binaries based on that. (I personally detest this type of thing, and all licenses that release source but don't let you use it properly. It strikes me as people trying to get the benefits of open source for themselves--people submitting patches, finding bugs in the source for you--without giving back anything at all to the OSS community.) Precisely, which is why we must reject such licenses as non-DFSG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpmWnS3fYZ8n.pgp Description: PGP signature
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
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. 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. 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. -- Glenn Maynard
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
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 04:28:57PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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. 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. Debian can write a very small patch that enables linking with libgpm, and Debian can license that patch under the GNU GPL. Voilá. -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpc3EwR8Mn5G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: draft for new Vim 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)? 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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
This is wholly satisfactory to me, at least. To address one of your other concerns, I don't think it would hurt to add the following sentence: You are encouraged to license your changes under the Vim license as well, and submit them to the Vim maintainer for possible inclusion in future versions of Vim. This is not legally binding, but it does nudge people in the direction you want them to go. This is a good idea. In situations like this the FSF urges people to cooperate with the maintainer.
Re: draft for new Vim license
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Ah, yes this is a good point often missed. Another way to put it is that free software must permit the distribution of modified versions, even versions with the null modification.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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. 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. 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.
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
Hi, 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.) Cheers, Mark
Re: draft for new Vim license
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)? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
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. This is wholly satisfactory to me, at least. To address one of your other concerns, I don't think it would hurt to add the following sentence: You are encouraged to license your changes under the Vim license as well, and submit them to the Vim maintainer for possible inclusion in future versions of Vim. This is not legally binding, but it does nudge people in the direction you want them to go. RMS, do you have any objections to my suggestion? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Bother, said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgptucRUhPko0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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. You are not allowed to add secrets to GPL'ed software if you distribute binaries compiled from that software, because the license requires you to make the source code available to anyone that you've distributed binaries to. If you are not distributing binaries, you are not obligated to distribute the source either. It seems to me that the term distribute has been used in a confusing manner in this discussion. Again, the GPL only places limits on how you distribute derived works *IF* you distribute derived works (either binary or source); if you are distributing *nothing* derived from GPL-licensed code, then you can keep whatever secrets that you want. 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? IANAL, but I am quite certain you could never coerce a third party to release source code under the GPL by improperly releasing binaries created from a combination of GPL code and code belonging to that third party. If anything, it seems to me that an employee who released binaries derived from proprietary code would be subject to prosecution under computer crime laws for theft of data. The first part of section 7 of the GPL reads: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. Again, IANAL, but I believe this is also applicable to the case of an employee who releases binaries that are covered by the GPL in opposition to a company policy. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. I think the terms of employment would certainly qualify as a legally binding other pertinent obligation. 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. For my part, I believe the wording is perfectly clear. But a company who needs to hear this answer from a lawyer would no doubt want to retain a lawyer on their own behalf to answer the question. Cheers, Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp7hkFh9ttcq.pgp Description: PGP signature
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
Glenn Maynard wrote: As I already said, it's allowed to compile, but you might not be allowed to distribute the result. That's actually the main problem of the GPL I don't like. But the dual-licensing would solve that. Which is it, linkable-but-not-distributable or not-linkable-at-all? (Question to this list, really; it's GPL's license that would place these restrictions, not yours. Yours just trigger them.) As far as I know, the GPL allows you to do anything, so long as it's on your own computer. Thus not giving anyone else a copy. If that isn't so than that would be a huge problem of the GPL. Actually, I think the law allows this, thus perhaps it doesn't even need to be mentioned in the license. Although that new law in the USA (millennium copyright act?) might cause trouble. With your draft, wouldn't that force a person to choose the GPL-compatible options (if distributing binaries linked against GPM)? That is, wouldn't that forbid choosing 3a or 3b, since those would prevent me, a user receiving the modified binaries linked against GPM, from having some guaranteed way of getting the source to those modifications? Yes, when you link with a GPL'ed piece of software, the GPL requires that it applies to the whole program, in addition to the original license, thus you must use the GPL-compatible part of the Vim license. That probably excludes 3a, since it requires sending source code to the maintainer, which the GPL doesn't want. 3b is distributing a modified Vim from 3a, thus is excluded as a result. If dual-licensed, and linked against a GPL library, wouldn't that force a person to choose the GPL option, for the same reason? Yes. That's not really much of a problem, if linking with a GPL library is all you do. However, if someone would write a nice addition to Vim and put the GPL on that addition, I can't include that code in Vim. I would have to ask the author for permission to include it in Vim under the Vim license, thus removing the GPL from that code. That's not really a big problem (I already accepted that), except that when using a dual license I expect it to happen quite often. Many people put the GPL on their work without realizing what the consequences are (more work for me!). This would mean there's a hidden restriction in your current draft: if the binary is linked against GPM (or any other libraries for other systems under the GPL), you can't choose 3a or 3b. That's a result of the GPL, not of the Vim license. I have actually added a note about this (after the license, not as part of the license) which explains this. Just as a warning to prevent people from doing things which are not allowed. I'm a bit confused here: d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned After this comes under c). What is a modified Vim that doens't include changes? (Do you mean a diff? You don't require that a diff be used; more likely I have a whole source tree that's been changed.) Isn't it clear that this is about further distributing a modified Vim as was created as mentioned under c)? I thought of putting a header for each of the alternatives, so that it's easier to understand the four alternatives, but this would make the license more vague. 4) The contact information as mentioned under 3) must not be removed or changed. Some room to fix errors would be nice. You require that contact information valid for three years be provided, like the GPL; but mistakes happen and houses get bulldozed. Some way to update contact information, as long as it's your own, would help. (The GPL's wording is completely different; 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. If someone else notices that an address is wrong, he can add a remark like this xxx address is invalid, it's now yyy. Just changing an address isn't a good idea, because you can't be 100% sure the new address is correct. Someone may move to Uganda and come back after a year, making the old address valid again. :-) - You clearly mention in the distribution how to contact you within at least three years after last distributing the modified Vim. I read this as You clearly mention XXX within at least three years. (Take a look at the GPL's wording; it's more precise.) Good point, I'll fix that. I have never heard from someone who said he would help developing Vim if it would use another license. 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. Are there any other libraries that might have this problem? Vim can link optionally against a ton of libraries. It's unusual for a library to go under the
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
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar 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? 2 A, I think. a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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 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. By this (rather authoritative) definition, for your license to be GPL- compatible, this must be allowed, whether you explicitely say so or not. Are you just trying to make it GPL compatible without saying so explicitely, in the fear that it would make it happen more often? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
Whoops. Botched a couple CC's. I'll forward them. On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: I'm a bit confused here: d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned After this comes under c). At the time I quoted this, I had been reading that as a reference (which includes changes, like those mentioned in D.) What is a modified Vim that doens't include changes? (Do you mean a diff? You don't require that a diff be used; more likely I have a whole source tree that's been changed.) 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. 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. 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? It's unusual for a library to go under the GPL. Mostly the LGPL is No, not really. A large number of licenses are GPL. 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. I think it's mostly a fundamental difference in what people want done with their software. 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. Those who make it LGPL are, I think, often more interested with changes to their own code being made available, and don't care if the code happens to aid something that's GPL-incompatible (like closed-source software) as long as the code itself remains free. I'm in this group--if I make my code publically available, I want that code to remain publically available, and I want it to remain open source, but I don't care at all if it happens to help a closed-source program. (Good! Someone else is writing less code and reinventing the wheel one less time.) A distinction I make (that the GPL does not) between linking against code and reusing source is that linking can't change the original at all; it prevents them from making any changes internally. Closed-source linking against my library makes my library no less free. I like open source, but people have the freedom to not use it, and I'd rather not attempt to penalize people who don't make GPL-compatible software (willingly or by force of employer) by making them rewrite code. Political rewrites are a waste of time. (There's a third class: those who make it LGPL in the interests of getting the library used. This is the reason some GNU libraries are LGPL.) (One quibble I have with the LGPL is, in fact, its GPL-compatibility clause (#3). If I release code with the intention that people writing GPL- incompatible code can make use of it, I'd prefer it stay that way. I can't have that and be GPL-compatible, though, and I'd choose GPL compatibility.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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. I agree, just as the copyright notice at the beginning of a book applies to the whole book unless there are explicit, different copyrights declared for subsections (quotation used by permission) or entire chapters, as you might find in an anthology of short stories or essays by different authors. 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. Only perceptually to the user; legally it's no more ambiguous than the copyright on a page or chapter of a book if you rip it loose from the binding. The copyright still applies even if the notice is missing. 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. It's not a risk at all, in terms of him losing his copyright, if in fact he has one. If he does have one, then it should be mentioned either in the file or people are well within their rights to assume that the Vim license applies to it, under the same principle that leads us to presume that all the pages of a book are under the copyright listed at the front unless otherwise noted. If your contributors hold copyright in parts of Vim and you are not supplying notice of this fact in the copyright notice that applies to Vim, then you may be infringing their copyright. Or not, if you received permission from them to republish their contributions as part of Vim without having to supply information about their copyright, or if they assigned the copyright to you (in a non-vague email, of course). -- G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-- G. L. Murfin pgpespoDnPe5Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
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
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Yes. That's the rule for Debian. If you know of a bunch of files floating around in Debian that we don't have the explicitly given right to copy, then we really need to deal with that ASAP, before woody releases. So please, provide the list! Or are you speaking only of files within vim?
Re: draft for new Vim license
Another problem that I'm worried about is that many people will think Vim _is_ GPL. It will be mentioned in lists in magazines and on web sites. We would have to check and request correction where it's wrong. Perhaps it would help to give a good name to the dual license. GPL++ perhaps? You could give the other license a name, like VimPL, and describe the disjunctive dual license as VimPL | GPL. GPL++ as a name would be misleading, since it implies a successor to the GPL.
Re: [g_dlegal@zewt.org: Re: draft for new Vim license]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Hmm, this only says the files must include a notice. The executable might not display the notice, thus a user might not be able to see he is using a modified version. This clause 2) was not in the previous version of the Vim license, thus this is actually a separate discussion. I could remove this clause, but I'm a bit worried about someone making a nasty change and distributing the result that looks just like the original Vim. Doesn't the GPL somehow prevent this from happening? By requiring source be provided. If someone's being malicious, and distributing backdoored or trojanned binaries, licenses aren't going to stop them. (They're probably doing something illegal already.) Nobody sane is going to backdoor a program, distribute backdoored binaries and backdoored source, along with a changelog entry that says added backdoor. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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. But this means the whole provide contact information and keep the changes around for a while stuff isn't usable by people who make changes, only people who redistribute them. (Not by D, anyway, any A/B are already out if the GPL is involved.) 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. Well, you'd have to do that with your own license (if you weren't the maintainer, of course); you'd still have to get permission in advance, either from legal (since the Vim maintainer might ask for the source at any time) or from the Vim maintainer to get him to agree never to ask. (If you did the latter, you'd probably want to clear it with legal anyway.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: 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. Can you explain again why you don't want to dual-license Vim under the GPL and some other license? As I recall, your objection to the GPL is not that it places too few restrictions on Vim, but that it places too many on it. (You feel it is too hard for companies to make money off of Vim if the GPL is the only license that applies to it.) This is exactly the sort of situation that dual-licensing solves. It seems to me that you want Vim to be attractive to two different audiences, with different goals: 1) The Free Software community, which includes Debian and the Free Software Foundation; these people's highest value is the right of the individual to use, modify, and distribute software. 2) Proprietary software companies, which find that they are able to command more money in the marketplace for software whose code is not accessible, freely modifiable, or freely distributable. The GPL is a very attractive license to audience 1). It's well established, in wide usage, and people have a lot of experience with it. It also, as far as I can tell, does not grant people permission to do things with Vim that you don't want to have, such as making secret changes to the source code, refusing to give them to you or anyone else, and selling this modified Vim commercially. That is why I do not suggest using the MIT or BSD licenses. The existing license on Vim 6.0 is, presumably, attractive to audience 2) because businesses can modify Vim with secret code as long as they come to an agreement with you. I do not think a dual-license strategy will be, or should be, objectionable to anyone. Here's why: 1) The contributors to Vim should not object to dual-licensing under the GPL because they have already agreed to license their changes under the Vim license, which is similar in intent. The only contributors that I can see who might be offended by such a proposal would be those who don't *want* the users of Vim to be able to receive source code to modified versions. Do you have any contributors who feel that way? I would suspect not, since you make all of Vim's source code, including the changes of your contributors, available to the public. 2) It should be appealing to you because it allows you to make the Vim license as simple as you want it. You expressed concern with making the Vim license much longer than it currently is. 3) It should be appealing to your users because they can use whichever license suits them. 4) It should be appealing to Andrew Haylett and Alessandro Rubini, who are the copyright holders of the GPM library, which is GPL'ed. At present, linking Vim with the GPM library is not permitted under the GPM library's license. 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? 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. 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. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpFHyVkGwMcR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: draft for new Vim license
Branden Robinson wrote: Can you explain again why you don't want to dual-license Vim under the GPL and some other license? As I recall, your objection to the GPL is not that it places too few restrictions on Vim, but that it places too many on it. (You feel it is too hard for companies to make money off of Vim if the GPL is the only license that applies to it.) This is exactly the sort of situation that dual-licensing solves. Not completely true. The GPL does allow distributing a modified version without source code, but with some way to obtain the source code somewhere. My draft license doesn't allow that, it requires that the changes are always included (for the relevant alternative). It's a subtle difference, but it does help to make sure the changes are easily available. The GPL does not allow adding changes that use a license incompatible with it. This a company that wants to keep his changes secret would have to use the alternative license. To avoid that every company has to contact me and negotiate, I would have to allow the most common cases in the standard license. I think this quickly becomes equal to the draft I wrote. It seems to me that you want Vim to be attractive to two different audiences, with different goals: 1) The Free Software community, which includes Debian and the Free Software Foundation; these people's highest value is the right of the individual to use, modify, and distribute software. 2) Proprietary software companies, which find that they are able to command more money in the marketplace for software whose code is not accessible, freely modifiable, or freely distributable. The GPL is a very attractive license to audience 1). It's well established, in wide usage, and people have a lot of experience with it. It also, as far as I can tell, does not grant people permission to do things with Vim that you don't want to have, such as making secret changes to the source code, refusing to give them to you or anyone else, and selling this modified Vim commercially. That is why I do not suggest using the MIT or BSD licenses. The GPL does allow someone to refuse giving me the source code changes. He can't be forced to distribute his copy to anyone. I would have to convince one of the people who received the changes to send me a copy. The GPL allows them to do that, but I still have to find someone who will send me a copy. They might all refuse (e.g., when they are all in the same organisation). Although this is a bit unlikely to happen, I like the principle that the person who makes the changes must send me those changes when I ask for them. I don't want to hunt them down. Thus allowing someone to use the GPL for the modified Vim may cause a problem for me. It might result in making the changes inaccesible for me. I understand why the GPL doesn't include this requirement, since it is hard to apply to software that was made by a group of people. And it puts a person (or group of people) in a privileged position, which some people might not like. Now, the draft Vim license also has a bit of this problem. That's one of the reasons I'm not sure I want to use it. A difference with the GPL is that I require that the changes are always included in the distribution. I thought this would reduce the disadvantage a bit. After all, who actually uses a written permisison to obtain the source code? Or even checks the source code is actually available? For most people (real users, not software developers like us) it means you get binaries and use them and never worry about the source code. Another problem that I'm worried about is that many people will think Vim _is_ GPL. It will be mentioned in lists in magazines and on web sites. We would have to check and request correction where it's wrong. Perhaps it would help to give a good name to the dual license. GPL++ perhaps? 2) It should be appealing to you because it allows you to make the Vim license as simple as you want it. You expressed concern with making the Vim license much longer than it currently is. Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what the GPL really means. I can't say I fully understand it. Writing my own license has the risk of making a mistake, causing a hole. But at least it was intended to be right and I can make corrections when needed (without changing the intention of the license). I can't change the GPL when I discover it has a disadvantage that I really don't like. 4) It should be appealing to Andrew Haylett and Alessandro Rubini, who are the copyright holders of the GPM library, which is GPL'ed. At present, linking Vim with the GPM library is not permitted under the GPM library's license. As I already said, it's allowed to compile, but you might not be allowed to distribute
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Not completely true. The GPL does allow distributing a modified version without source code, but with some way to obtain the source code somewhere. My draft license doesn't allow that, it requires that the changes are always included (for the relevant alternative). It's a subtle difference, but it does help to make sure the changes are easily available. ...(for the relevant alternative). The GPL allows people to not release the source code to their changes right away, under one alternative. So does the Vim license, under one alternative. I don't think the difference is subtle, I think it is practically nonexistent. The GPL's alternatives are: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Your proposed alternatives are: 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 make them available to him. - You clearly mention in the distribution how to contact you within at least three years after last distributing the modified Vim. Your 3c) maps to the GPL's 3a). Your 3d) maps to the GPL's 3b). The GPL does not allow adding changes that use a license incompatible with it. No license allows doing things with a program that are incompatible with its license. This is a tautology. The relevant questions are: Does the restrictions the license places on the user run afoul of the Debian Free Software Guidelines? Does the license on the software conflict with that placed on other software
Re: draft for new Vim license
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what the GPL really means. I can't say I fully understand it. But why do you think your license is going to evade this problem? I think, measured against lines of code, the vim license has garnered vastly more confusion, discussion, correction of wrong ideas, etc.
Re: draft for new Vim license
Branden Robinson wrote: [many parts cut away] The GPL does not allow adding changes that use a license incompatible with it. No license allows doing things with a program that are incompatible with its license. This is a tautology. The relevant questions are: Does the restrictions the license places on the user run afoul of the Debian Free Software Guidelines? Does the license on the software conflict with that placed on other software that the former integrates? I wasn't thinking specifically about Debian. If I understand the GPL correctly, it requires additions to a program to be licensed with the GPL again. So you can't add some secret code and give the executable to someone else, using your own license for the added part. Many companies run into practical problems with this. The example of linking with the GPM library shows that it's not even secret code, but also an incompatible license that prevents distribution. Well, enough about why I don't like using GPL as a single license. In actual fact, though, the interpretation of the GPL you should be most concerned about at present is that of Andrew Haylett and Alessando Rubini. Perhaps you could ask them to add a rider to their license on the GPM library to explicitly permit linking with Vim? That's a very specific solution to a generic problem. I'll try to make the Vim license GPL compatible, but I'm not sure if this is possible without compromizing too much. Another problem that I'm worried about is that many people will think Vim _is_ GPL. It will be mentioned in lists in magazines and on web sites. We would have to check and request correction where it's wrong. Perl is dual-licensed, and I don't see magazines getting this wrong. I'm happy to help you write text to go at the top of the Vim license document to try and make this crystal clear. I don't think this should be a stumbling block for you. I've seen Perl been referred to as free, freeware and covered under the open-source, free Artistic License. Just a few quick searches on the net. Seems it's missing the GPL remark in quite a few places. There are also places where they got it right. Perhaps it would help to give a good name to the dual license. GPL++ perhaps? I think this would cause even more confusion than it would avoid. People might think it's a new version of the GPL from the FSF. Well, wouldn't that be a good idea? :-) However, one of the major principles behind Free Software is the act of letting go of absolute control over your work. If you're not comfortable with that principle, then you should not seek acceptance of Vim as Free Software. Another goal is to be responsible for the work that I've done. I feel I'm responsible for providing Vim users with a very good program. Thus I'll use a license that helps making that possible. Being able to include changes that various people made is part of that. Freedom as such isn't really my main goal with Vim. But it's nice to allow people to us the Vim code as much as this doesn't conflict with other goals. Yes it is. I think that's a point worth pondering. You are shifting the burden of dual-licensing onto your contributors. You might get more contributors if you're willing to allow distribution of Vim under the GPL, because there are a lot of developers out there who are comfortable writing code under the GPL, and probably fewer who are comfortable writing code under the Vim license (what's that?). I have never heard from someone who said he would help developing Vim if it would use another license. I do have heard from people who would like to include Vim inside another program (e.g., and IDE), and this would be made impossible by the GPL (as a single license). So does your (existing, actual) license, actually. It allows distributing the binaries without any obligation to give anyone but you the changes to the source code. If you elect to collude with someone who modifies Vim to keep the changes secret, your license is actually much weaker than the GPL. The users of the modified Vim have no recourse to obtain the source code for their modified version. And they may not even have the option to use the official version; perhaps they are in a work or school environment which harshly punishes the installation of unauthorized software. Yes, that's one of the reasons to make the Vim license a bit more free. In practice, however, this has never caused any problems. The requirement that someone must be willing to give me the source code and I'm allowed to include it in the official release is quite strong. 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... Sufficient to achieve what, exactly? Omniscience of all source-level changes to Vim that are made? Such a goal is simply not going to be reconcilable with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Re: 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 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. 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. 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. Here is more explanation about what it means to be GPL-compatible: 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? 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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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. 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). A case like this has to be seen from both sides: to combine the two modules, you have to satisfy the license of each one. From Vim's side, the question is: does the Vim license permit linking it with that library? From the library's side, the question is: does the library's license permit linking it with Vim? The questions are symmetrical, but since the licenses are different, the answers are not symmetrical. If the current Vim license says no to the first question, adding text to the Vim license could make it say yes in the same circumstances. But there is also the second question. If the library's license is the GNU GPL, it says yes if and only if Vim has a GPL-compatible license.
Re: draft for new Vim license
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.
Re: draft for new Vim license
(Replies from multiple messages.) On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what the GPL really means. I can't say I fully understand it. I find the GPL clearer, myself. Your license reads like this to me: You can do A; B (if someone did A to you), C, D (if someone did C to you) but D only if X, Y and Z. (On rereading, the there's no second if someone did C to you, but that only became clear after reading it a couple times.) The GPL has a lot more in it, but none of it inspires me to write a flowchart. As I already said, it's allowed to compile, but you might not be allowed to distribute the result. That's actually the main problem of the GPL I don't like. But the dual-licensing would solve that. Which is it, linkable-but-not-distributable or not-linkable-at-all? (Question to this list, really; it's GPL's license that would place these restrictions, not yours. Yours just trigger them.) 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... With your draft, wouldn't that force a person to choose the GPL-compatible options (if distributing binaries linked against GPM)? That is, wouldn't that forbid choosing 3a or 3b, since those would prevent me, a user receiving the modified binaries linked against GPM, from having some guaranteed way of getting the source to those modifications? If dual-licensed, and linked against a GPL library, wouldn't that force a person to choose the GPL option, for the same reason? If either of these aren't true, then it would seem this would be a way to distribute binaries linked against GPL libraries without source, and I doubt that's the case. This would mean there's a hidden restriction in your current draft: if the binary is linked against GPM (or any other libraries for other systems under the GPL), you can't choose 3a or 3b. Although this is a bit unlikely to happen, I like the principle that the person who makes the changes must send me those changes when I ask for them. I don't want to hunt them down. Thus allowing someone to use the GPL for the modified Vim may cause a problem for me. It might result in making the changes inaccesible for me. I think this can happen with the draft. I distribute a bunch of copies of modified Vim to friends, under 3c. I don't have to give you source, unless I happen to give you the binary. The people I gave the copies to don't, either, unless they redistribute it again under 3d. I'm a bit confused here: d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned What is a modified Vim that doens't include changes? (Do you mean a diff? You don't require that a diff be used; more likely I have a whole source tree that's been changed.) 4) The contact information as mentioned under 3) must not be removed or changed. Some room to fix errors would be nice. You require that contact information valid for three years be provided, like the GPL; but mistakes happen and houses get bulldozed. Some way to update contact information, as long as it's your own, would help. (The GPL's wording is completely different; - You clearly mention in the distribution how to contact you within at least three years after last distributing the modified Vim. I read this as You clearly mention XXX within at least three years. (Take a look at the GPL's wording; it's more precise.) I have never heard from someone who said he would help developing Vim if it would use another license. 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. However, nobody really cares about what the official rules are. There have been quite a few counterexamples in this discussion alone. You do, or you wouldn't be using your own license. I do; I always look at licenses before even considering writing substantial code for a program. I disagree. Debian, and more specifically SPI, does not want to get sued for copyright infringment, or for contributory infringment 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
Re: draft for new Vim license
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. -- Henning Makholm You have just inherited command of a regiment. What are you going to do with your command, Mister?
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. The new license you just posted, in my opinion, would be DFSG-free. It seems to me that it would also be GPL compatible, but I'm not certain and I'd want to hear what RMS has to say about that. I agree that the license is DFSG-free. However, I don't think that it is GPL-compatible. In the license, there are four options for distributing modified copies. The first option (3a) is just the old Vim license and is GPL incompatible. The second (3b) is permission to distribute those modified versions even if you're not the one who modified it. The third (3c) is more tricky. It reads 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. 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. I don't think that there is a way out of this quandary. Relicensing the code of contributors under a proprietary license is one of Bram's goals with his license, and the GPL is just not compatible with it. The fourth option (3d) is very similar to the GPL's option of allowing written offers instead of actual source code. It has an enforced licensing problem that is very similar to the third part, but is otherwise (I think) compatible with the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft for new Vim license
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.
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
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. 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). -- Henning Makholm What has it got in its pocketses?
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: draft for new Vim license
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. The new license you just posted, in my opinion, would be DFSG-free. It seems to me that it would also be GPL compatible, but I'm not certain and I'd want to hear what RMS has to say about that.
Re: draft for new Vim license
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar 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 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. 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. 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. Remember, there is always the dual-licensing option. It's probably less desirable than a GPL-compatible Vim license that says what you want though. (GPL compatibility would ordinarily just be a nice bonus, but usage of the gpm library has put a fly in the ointment.) Also, since this changes the intention of the license, I will have to ask Vim contributors if they agree with this change. Please let us know what they think. Let me know if you have suggestions for improvement. I do have a couple of suggestions but I *think* they are just further clarficiations of your intent. Plus a bunch of grammatical and stylistic fixups. 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. I would say You can also distribute unmodified parts of Vim. ^^ Just so people can't weasel out by removing the sentence from context. You are also allowed to include executables that you made from the ^^^^^^ permitted distribute unmodified Vim sources, plus your own usage examples and Vim scripts. II) It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with executables ^^^ permitted 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 ^^^ describe distribution how to contact you. I would add This information must be clear and accurate. 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 ^^^ your maintainer. The maintainer reserves the right to include the ^^^ your changes in the official version of Vim. What the maintainer will do with the changes and under what license they are distributed is ^^^ ^^^ yourwill be negotiable. If there was no negotiation then this license also ^^^ ^ has been , 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 ^ has the changes they will not have to be send
