Re: GPL + question
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote: Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as. Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would say... Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the second license? Only a copyright holder can enforce their copyrights. IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license... Exactly. So, if a work is originally licensed under GPL-2+ and Person A makes a copy and gives it to Person B under GPL-3. Now consider that Person B gives a copy to Person C under GPL-2+. Person A can't enforce the original copyright holder's copyrights. I find it difficult to believe that the original copyright holder would enforce Person A's license. unless you also granted (delegated?) the right of enforcing the work license to someone else. I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to someone else, otherwise why wouldn't copyleft authors just let give everyone the right to enforce their license? pgp0cuqkC5oY0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL + question
I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to someone else, I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the copyright owner. That's what I meant; I probably didn't word it clearly, though. pgp4w78cg1zYD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL + question
On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote: Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as. Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would say... Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the second license? Only a copyright holder can enforce their copyrights. IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license... unless you also granted (delegated?) the right of enforcing the work license to someone else. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/556a2aa5.90...@gmail.com
Re: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:58:06AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was talking about the first sentence. Hi again, The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531000831.ga26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: DFSG-ness of two
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was talking about the first sentence. The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source sold to other developers. pgpmnlpL11HKw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG-ness of two
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source sold to other developers. That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm with the original author if this is what he intended. Would you be able to do that? I'm not quite sure that I understand your interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to write the email well. In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow this option. pgpeYofckGHLu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL + question
On 31/05/15 00:10, Riley Baird wrote: On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200 Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license... Exactly. So, if a work is originally licensed under GPL-2+ and Person A makes a copy and gives it to Person B under GPL-3. Now consider that Person B gives a copy to Person C under GPL-2+. Person A can't enforce the original copyright holder's copyrights. I find it difficult to believe that the original copyright holder would enforce Person A's license. unless you also granted (delegated?) the right of enforcing the work license to someone else. I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to someone else, Copyright collecting societies do so. otherwise why wouldn't copyleft authors just let give everyone the right to enforce their license? I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the copyright owner. Also note that if authors gave that power to everyone, anyone attempting to exercise that right would still need the author in order to prove that the author didn't also provide a propietary license to the infringer,¹ so it wouldn't be that useful. Usually, copyright collecting societies are the only ones entitled to license that author's work, and their position when detecting infringement is thus quite different. ¹ unless they also gave up the right to ever license it under different terms, perhaps. A very bad idea IMHO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/556a50c1.2070...@gmail.com
Re: DFSG-ness of two
Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source sold to other developers. That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm with the original author if this is what he intended. In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531013253.ga11...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: GPL + question
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: If it were me, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the upstream author of missfits, and trust him that if he added a GPLv3+ header, it is because he modified the files, as he says in the README. When I adopted the first package from this author (sextractor), I asked him per E-mail about this subdirectory -- more since a newer version of the library in question (wcslib) is already in Debian, and I wanted to avoid using a convienience copy. He convinced me then that his version is slightly changed and therefore not just linkable with the original. I didn't ask for his other packages (missfits, scamp, swarp, psfex; some of them are already in Debian, others are now in NEW), but since they all follow the same structure, I am quite sure that his arguments are valid there as well. In that case, the license to be indicated in debian/copyright should be GPLv3+. I re-uploaded the package with a (hopefully) clarifying comment in debian/copyright; let's see how he decides now. Best regards Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87h9quebju@debian.org
