Re: GPL + question
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:32:57AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: I think the problem here is the notion that a file necessarily has exactly one licence. Totally agree. [snip] So it is true that a downstream redistributor who does not change F cannot change the licence, because the only permission needed (in copyright law) is that from upstream. If upstream grant GPLv2+ then even if the downstream writes GPLv3+ then everyone can still rely on upstream's permission, putting the upstream GPLv2+ notice back. They can do it because the license never changed, it was *just* distributed under a different set of terms (the GPLv2+ says you can distribute it as if it were GPLv3+ and everything is tidy -- it does *not* say you can yell hocus pocus and the license changes into GPLv3+ and can never be turned back.) However, if a downstream redistributor modifies the file, they can narrow the set of permissions. This is because in copyright law, they have their own copyright in the modifications. So if a downstream changes GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ _and modifies the file_ then the GPLv2+ is no longer applicable. To the combined / derived work, yes. If the modifications were reverted, there's no reason the file would be GPLv3+, it'd go back to the original terms, since you (as *not* the copyright holder) can't relicense the work. [snip] (So I think Paul is wrong if he thinks, as he seems to, that it is a violation of copyright law to change GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ when merely redistributing.) This is again confusing the issue. Let me be clear: A) You can *not* relicense a work that you don't hold. B) The GPL*+ grants you the right to redistribute under future terms and still be complient with the version that its license under. You can use B to distribute under the GPLv3 if you would like, but *you do not relicense the work*. It's still GPLv2. You can take GPLv2+ and *distribute* it as if it was GPLv3, but you *do not relicense* the work. Given that A is a thing, you have no way to do that anyway. But to do so would be rude and we should try not to do it. So I think that where practical if we can determine that a package is dual (or triple) licenced, we should document all the permissions - that is, all the licences. I think that's sensable, I have a hard time believing upstreams are so good, honestly, we should be thankful to the author of this package we're talking about, since they took the time to document it was derived (hopefully modified!) from a LGPL work. It appears that in this particular case package has been modified by the GPLv3+-preferring downstream. In that case there is no permission to distribute under GPLv2+ any more. Totally agree. I don't think it is sensible to insist that the Debian maintainer do a lot of work to try to discover whether some files in the package have /not/ been modified by the GPLv3+-preferring author (or by other people who contributed to that author's version and never saw a GPLv2+ licence). I agree we should trust upstream in this case, but I'm generally interested. I don't like the idea people think they can just magically relicense files rather then use the right to redistribute. That work is not necessary in copyright law, and we aren't really doing the Free Software world much of a service by performing it - at least, once we have decided to package the GPLv3+ fork at all. If someone wants to try to strip the GPLv3+ parts out of the fork then that's fine of course, but I don't think we should insist that the Debian maintainer do the necessary archaeology. I don't think that's needed; I love the GPLv3 and I don't see a problem here :) I also wouldn't have the maintainer add it to the copyright file, but there is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread on the mechanism by which the GPLv3 works. The proof is on you -- where does it say you can relicense someone else's copyrighted work / IP? Not *redistribute*, *relicense*. The answer to this question is very clear. The proof is in the original licensing notice: either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The downstream distributor may choose a later version (3, say, or any version 3 or later) and comply with its terms. No, wait Ian :) Full quote: | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by | the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or | (at your option) any later version. You may *redistribute* or *modify*. You may not *relicense*. I can't come along to gettext and say it's now GPLv3+, because it will forever be GPLv2+ until the copyright holder(s) relicense. I can merely redistribute it under the terms of the GPLv3+, until I modify it, where I can change the terms of the derived work, but *not* the original works. If I revert my changes, there's no reason it'd still be GPLv3+ I strongly think we
Re: GPL + question
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:10:14 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: [...] They can do it because the license never changed, it was *just* distributed under a different set of terms (the GPLv2+ says you can distribute it as if it were GPLv3+ and everything is tidy -- it does *not* say you can yell hocus pocus and the license changes into GPLv3+ and can never be turned back.) But here we are not talking about GPL v2 or later; we are talking about files which (before being modified) were originally under LGPL v2 or later... And the LGPL v2 says you can yell hocus pocus (more or less). Please see my previous message: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/05/msg00045.html -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpPxlKencabs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] DFSG-ness of two
On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:11:43 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote: [...] The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just talks about using, which is a vague term) Are you sure? Clause 3 says: 3) If you modify and/or distribute the code to any third party then you must not veil the original author. To me this says that you are allowed to modify and distribute, just not veil authorship. That's what I said: it fails to *explicitly* grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify; it just *implicitly* says that you allowed to modify and distribute. Is even this not enough? It *may* be considered to be more or less enough, although it lacks some clarity (which would be much much appreciated, lest we later face some unexpected contorted interpretation of a non-clear license text...). Indeed, it doesn't mention copy. This doesn't help the unfreeness about selling it. And this is the main reason why I think this second license fails to meet the DFSG: it forbids anyone to sell aggregate software distributions containing the file, as I have already said. I recommend you to get in touch with the copyright owner of this second file and try to persuade him to re-license the file under DFSG-free terms, such as, for instance, the Expat license [2]. I will. Thanks a lot, this is very appreciated. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpEBs6AA5t5q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL + question
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: GPL + question): They *can* since the work as modified *can* be distributed under the terms of the GPLv3+, *without* changing the original work's license, but the *file* can be distributed as GPLv3+, since that's the minimum license needed to comply with all parts. I think the problem here is the notion that a file necessarily has exactly one licence. The only actually accurate statements one can make are there is [not] permission to distribute file F under licence L. If you want to know what licence does a file have what you really ean is for what set of licences L1,L2,L3... is it the case that there is permission to distribute. So it is true that a downstream redistributor who does not change F cannot change the licence, because the only permission needed (in copyright law) is that from upstream. If upstream grant GPLv2+ then even if the downstream writes GPLv3+ then everyone can still rely on upstream's permission, putting the upstream GPLv2+ notice back. However, if a downstream redistributor modifies the file, they can narrow the set of permissions. This is because in copyright law, they have their own copyright in the modifications. So if a downstream changes GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ _and modifies the file_ then the GPLv2+ is no longer applicable. For Debian, there is the question of what to put in debian/copyright. Obviously we need to put in debian/copyright some applicable Ln (that is, an Ln which applies to all the files F). If there is permission to distribute under L1,L2,... then it would be legitimate in a copyright law sense to write in debian/copyright only L1. To do so would not be a breach of the copyright, because we would be acting in accordance with L1. (So I think Paul is wrong if he thinks, as he seems to, that it is a violation of copyright law to change GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ when merely redistributing.) But to do so would be rude and we should try not to do it. So I think that where practical if we can determine that a package is dual (or triple) licenced, we should document all the permissions - that is, all the licences. It appears that in this particular case package has been modified by the GPLv3+-preferring downstream. In that case there is no permission to distribute under GPLv2+ any more. I don't think it is sensible to insist that the Debian maintainer do a lot of work to try to discover whether some files in the package have /not/ been modified by the GPLv3+-preferring author (or by other people who contributed to that author's version and never saw a GPLv2+ licence). That work is not necessary in copyright law, and we aren't really doing the Free Software world much of a service by performing it - at least, once we have decided to package the GPLv3+ fork at all. If someone wants to try to strip the GPLv3+ parts out of the fork then that's fine of course, but I don't think we should insist that the Debian maintainer do the necessary archaeology. The proof is on you -- where does it say you can relicense someone else's copyrighted work / IP? Not *redistribute*, *relicense*. The answer to this question is very clear. The proof is in the original licensing notice: either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The downstream distributor may choose a later version (3, say, or any version 3 or later) and comply with its terms. Thanks, Ian. -- 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/21866.58201.37278.496...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Re: DFSG-ness of two
Hi, [I should have requested to keep pkg-pascal-devel@l.a.d.o in the CC] 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. I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream list about that inclusion [1], unfortunately without proof: But I asked Sorokin if he could relicense TRegExpr from RegExpStudio in the same modifyed LGPL as the FPC RTL and FCL and he agreed! I couldn't find the option to use the modified LGPL in the lazarus version, not even in older versions. I will ask Sorokin if the option mentioned above is also valid for Lazarus. At least this gives the option to include the functionality of synregexp in Lazarus without jumping big hoops. Paul [1] http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/2011-August/025239.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] DFSG-ness of two
Hi Francesco, On 29-05-15 23:07, Francesco Poli wrote: Second: Windows XP Theme Manager is freeware. You may freely use it in any software, including commercial software, provided you accept the following conditions: 1) The software may not be included into component collections and similar compilations which are sold. If you want to distribute this software for money then contact me first and ask for my permission. [...] The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just talks about using, which is a vague term) Are you sure? Clause 3 says: 3) If you modify and/or distribute the code to any third party then you must not veil the original author. To me this says that you are allowed to modify and distribute, just not veil authorship. Is even this not enough? Indeed, it doesn't mention copy. This doesn't help the unfreeness about selling it. I recommend you to get in touch with the copyright owner of this second file and try to persuade him to re-license the file under DFSG-free terms, such as, for instance, the Expat license [2]. I will. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
