Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: I consider the inability to include immutable text in software released under the GPL a bug in the GPL. Nobody forces you to use the GPL, so if you perceive a problem I suggest to use another license for your program. However, the IETF should not prevent implementers from using the GPL, for the same reasons IETF should not prevent Microsoft from using its EULA as the license. BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to be free of restrictions upon its modification. I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information is unclear. Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. don't really apply in this case. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL 3 - I'm breaking the GPL Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org. Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes: BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to be free of restrictions upon its modification. I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information is unclear. Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. You can't release the text of the GPL under the GPL license, since you are not the copyright holder of the text in the GPL license. Further, the license of the GPL text does not permit re-licensing, or even modifications. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. don't really apply in this case. That interpretation seems clearly bogus to me. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. 3 - I'm breaking the GPL That may hold as well, but without further elaboration I can't tell for sure. I compared the part of your work that consists of the GPL text with the canonical version [1]. It seems that someone has modified the license text: the section 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' is missing. If you had read that section, you would know of a better way to explain the licensing conditions to users that would have avoided the problem. I believe this violate the license on the GPL itself, so you may want to fix it. However, I don't think the FSF will care significantly about that problem. For more information, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? Your question comes up and is answered in Debian mailing lists from time to time: some people claim that Debian cannot distribute the GPL license text because it is not licensed under a free software license. /Simon [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC (which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments into a work? With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it. With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it. Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the second is a show-stopper? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish free (as in licensed under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. BTW, why cannot a free software author license some particular standards text under both RFC 5378 terms, and some other license (a free software license, or even GPL)? Presumably, he/she owns the copyright, and 5378 terms are non-exclusive. Obviously, for collaborative efforts this may require that all copyright holders agree, and that may make this unpractical. But I wonder if there was some other reason? Best regards, Pasi ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish free (as in licensed under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. BTW, why cannot a free software author license some particular standards text under both RFC 5378 terms, and some other license (a free software license, or even GPL)? Presumably, he/she owns the copyright, and 5378 terms are non-exclusive. Obviously, for collaborative efforts this may require that all copyright holders agree, and that may make this unpractical. But I wonder if there was some other reason? No, that approach works fine as far as I can see. It has been used for some documents, and parts of some documents, already. That doesn't make the standard published by the IETF free as in free software licensed though. I admit this is a subtle distinction, and given the discussion, I must have explained this poorly. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Harald Alvestrand wrote: Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. don't really apply in this case. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL 3 - I'm breaking the GPL Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? 4 - The contradiction in licensing terms turns the work licensed by its own terms, that are not exactly those of the GPL. Furthermore, the original copyright holder breached the GPL *text* copyright. He did not breached the GPL itself since he is the original author of the work. The intent of the original copyright holder is clear however, despite a minor glith in document distribution. Simon and I and anyone else who whish to create derivative works under the GPL can fix it, and not carry forward the contradiction in licensing terms (the Harald intent above is not clear, the referenced work is not his work, and it is already released). Anyway, Harald highlighted a corner case in GPL licensing that creates some inconvenience (can't put GPL text in GPL'ed work, it must remain meta-data). IETF as a *document* editor is expected to use licensing terms that reasonably fits its purpose. The audience lobbyed by Simon should just live by inconvenience created by IETF licensing terms (no RFC text in GPL'ed software beyond fair use - it must remain as separate documentation). Routine open software distribution abide by these rules. Please preserve the integrity of IETF rules addressing the needs of a broader and a more diversified audience than the one lobbied by Simon. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
