Re: License question: GPL+Exception
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence > >as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html > > I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a > single entity) By "invalid", I take MJ Ray's meaning as "not a usable license for recipients of the work". > Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not > "GPL", but "GPL plus restrictions". The result can't be invalid, > because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to > what is granted. The result can be a license with contraditory terms, as in this case (GPL requires no additional restrictions; yet additional restrictions are required). Since the terms are contradictory, the recipient cannot simultaneously satisfy all the terms of the license; thus the recipient has no valid license in the work. -- \ "All good things are cheap; all bad are very dear." -- Henry | `\ David Thoreau | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes [...] > >The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as > >permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should > >use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. > > As, presumably, they do. Hence "GPL plus restrictions". If it's a license derived from the GNU GPL, it cannot refer to the GPL terms, but must copy and modify them instead. And it cannot be named GPL or mention GNU. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL It's not what has been done by Red Hat. They licensed their work under the GNU GPL v2 + additional restrictions. This is different from licensing under a FooBar license derived from the GNU GPL v2. > > > >I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and > >I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. > > > >Hope that explains, > > Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not > "GPL", but "GPL plus restrictions". That is the problem! > The result can't be invalid, > because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to > what is granted. It's not clear at all, because it is self-contradictory. In section 6 of the GNU GPL v2, it's clearly stated that no further restrictions *beyond the ones found in the GPL terms* can be imposed. But such restrictions are imposed, at the same time. > > A "GPL plus restrictions" is only invalid when the GPL is granted by > one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. That case is not a invalid license, it's a copyright violation, which is a different beast! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpDZDqvdclXU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you > cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. > Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is > undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions & restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the entire grant is by a single entity) That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. As, presumably, they do. Hence "GPL plus restrictions". I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, Thing is, the licence, as granted by the !copyright holder! is not "GPL", but "GPL plus restrictions". The result can't be invalid, because it is granted by the copyright holder, and is clear as to what is granted. A "GPL plus restrictions" is only invalid when the GPL is granted by one entity, and the restrictions imposed by a different one. I can't licence my code as "plus restrictions" and mix it with "pure GPL" code by someone else. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: > > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights > > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you > > cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. > > Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is > > undistributable. > > A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the > GPL, but GPL + exceptions & restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not > GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe > the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. [...] First, I think b is not an exception but a restriction. Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html That isn't much different to using the plain GPL with an OpenSSL-like licence - both licences are DFSG-free, but we can't satisy both of them simultaneously without additional permission on the GPL side. Of course a copyright holder of the entire work could still copy and distribute and so on because they don't need a licence but we can't because we can't satisfy both of those restrictions simultaneously. The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should use the plain GPL, because I dislike licence proliferation. I'm surprised that Red Hat have produced an inconsistent licence and I'm surprised that GPL+restrictions isn't widely-known as non-free. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
Wesley J. Landaker writes: > On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: >> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights >> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you >> cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. >> Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is >> undistributable. > > A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the > GPL, but GPL + exceptions & restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not > GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe > the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. The text of the GPL is copyrighted. To the best of my knowledge, the FSF is like most of the free software community in generally discouraging the creation such derivative licenses. In any case, the copyright owner for this software really should talk to the FSF about getting permission to use the text of the GPL in a "GPL+limitations" type of license. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you > cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. > Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is > undistributable. A licensee can't, but the copyright holder can. Their license is NOT the GPL, but GPL + exceptions & restrictions. That is perfectly valid, just not GPL compatible. The exception they have adds extra freedom, and I believe the one restriction they add is DFSG-free. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a big debate about it. The OP is just going to have to decide, and if the upload the package, the ftp-masters will have to decide what they believe. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp8MoYXHvoMJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because > > it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional > > restrictions). > > > > What do other debian-legal contributors think? > > This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free. > > The GPL says: > > """ > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ^^ > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^^ > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License. > """ > > So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further > restrictions. You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is undistributable. Please see the thread that I referenced in the footnote of my previous message. > Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional > restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL > software in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions > the their originally licensed software--as they copyright holders, > they can use any license they want. They can use any license they want, but if they use a self-contradicting one, we do *not* have a valid license and the result is an undistributable work... [...] > The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't > see why it wouldn't be DFSG free[1]. The fact that a clause is *similar* to one seen in a GPLv3 draft has *never* been a valid reason why it should be considered DFSG-free. Please, let's avoid drifting away from the topic we are talking about: we are trying to analyze a GPLv2 + restrictions licensing scheme. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdgX93TJQ4N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: > Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional > restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2? > > | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the > | Software in a physical product must provide you the right to > | access and modify the source code for the Software and to > | reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code > | form on the same physical product on which you received it. > > If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because > it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional > restrictions). > > What do other debian-legal contributors think? This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free. The GPL says: """ 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. """ So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further restrictions. Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL software in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions the their originally licensed software--as they copyright holders, they can use any license they want. So if they say their fonts are GPL+restriction, the fonts are NOT GPL compatible, but as long as the restriction itself is DFSG free, the work as a whole should be fine. The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't see why it wouldn't be DFSG free[1]. [1] Cue someone who will point out a billion reasons why they think similar clauses in GPLv3 drafts aren't DFSG. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpPTh5fpeTsl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License question: GPL+Exception
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:52:05 +0100 (BST) Alan Baghumian wrote: [...] > You can find the exact license here: > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2? | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the | Software in a physical product must provide you the right to | access and modify the source code for the Software and to | reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code | form on the same physical product on which you received it. If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional restrictions). What do other debian-legal contributors think? [1] For a more detailed explanation of the problems that arise from adding restrictions to the GPL v2, see the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html Especially take a look at this reply from RMS: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html and at my analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00309.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp4RXZHH2tNC.pgp Description: PGP signature
