Re: draft for new Vim license

[Steve Langasek]

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: Netscape on Alpha?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Walter Landry wrote:


Andrea Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

the problem: Debian Alpha is lacking a good browser 
the solution: there is a version of Netscape 4.7-4 
that was compiled by Compaq for  Tru64; this version is 
also distributed by RedHat for Alpha; some people have

passed it thru alien and installed it, and it works; it would take me
20 minutes to upload it into Debian archives (unstable/non-free)
the question: it contains some libraries by Compaq: can I upload it?
The license follows.



In the snippet you posted, there was no permission to redistribute.
Debian needs that in order to even put it in non-free.  Also, I
couldn't get the alphalinux web site to work.  I imagine that there is
more to the license than what you described.  I found the website at

http://help.netscape.com/kb/consumer/19990123-1.html

which has some different options for running netscape.  It talks about
needing some licenses for running the original libraries.  If you
could clear all of this up, then Debian might be able to distribute
Netscape (but maybe not).

There's another option: an installer package in the style of realplayer 
and the Compaq (Alpha) math library packages.  This would require the 
user to download the relevant files, then install them in a Debian way.


Just a thought,
--

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: draft for new Vim license

[Branden Robinson]

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

[Glenn Maynard]

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

[Mark Wielaard]

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

[Bram Moolenaar]

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

[Bram Moolenaar]

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

[Bram Moolenaar]

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]

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]

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

[Richard Stallman]

>   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.

안녕하세요,,,,,

[박정수]

 
 
  문서번호:21가마-008977
 
 
  수 신:대표이사님
 
 
  발 신:사무기관리조합 최진범
 
 
  참 조:컴퓨터/복사기/사무기/LCD/부동산 처분건
 
 
  
 
 
  ◈ 안녕하십니까? 사무기관리조합입니다.중소기업협참조로 연락드리오니 회사및
 
 
  직원분들이 필요하시면 참조하시기 바랍니다.(대리점
  정리하는 사무기 처분건입니다)
 
 
  
 
 
  ◈ 저희 사무기관리조합은 사무기기 대리점관리 및
  대리점 정리시 사무기기를 일시적으로
 
 
  처분하여 드리며 본
  공문처분가격은 일시적인 처분가격 입니다.
 
 
  
 
 
   LCD(두께2cm)모니터19인치 무료상기물품 구입자만
  무료임
 
 
  (화면 100인치포함)모든제품 보증서 포함됨
 
 
  ★LCD빔프로젝터+레이져칼라프린터구입가격 1,600만원→처분가격285만
 
 
  (프로젝터와 +칼라레이져는 세트입니다 각각
  분리구입은 불가능함)
 
 
  (소니,산요,샤프,엡손,HP 메이커별로 여러가지가
  있음 가격은 무조건 285만원임)
 
 
  
 
 
  ◐ 구입은 현금및 자기앞 수표만 가능하며
 
 
  세금계산서는
  의무적으로 발행하여드림
 
 
  
 
 
  ◐컴퓨터/복사기/팩스/키폰/사무기7가지세트용
 
 
  
 
 
  ☞7가지원 소비자가격1,200만원⇒처분가격385만원
 
 
  
 
 
  *
 
 
  ①복사기(축소,확대,줌
  배율기능)+②삼성컴퓨터(686
  DVD내장형/정품프로그램CD10종류외
 
 
  
 
 
  * 화상카메라/*고성능 마이크포함) +③프린터초고속+④스캐너+⑤일반용지
  팩시밀리
 
 
  
 
 
  ⑥키폰
  LG디지탈16국선+⑦LCD모니터 19인치 (반드시
  7가지를 1세트로 구입하셔야함)
 
 
  
 
 
  ★ 상기 모든 제품은 박스도 풀지 않은 신품 입니다(전제품무상A/S보증서 포함임)
 
 
  
 
 
  ★7가지원 소비자가격1,200만원→7가지 세트 처분가격:385만원(현금및자기앞수표만가능)
 
 
  
 
 
  ★7가지를 세트로 만 구입 하셔야 하며
  낱개는 구입불가함(예,컴퓨터만은구입불가) 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  $$상기 7가지 제품은 여러세트가 있으니 창고에서
  보시고 유리하신것으로 선택바람
 
 
  
 
 
  ★-- 대표이사님이
  직접 방문 상기사무기기만 구입할경우는 중소기업
 
 
  대표자 예우차원에서 10%할인하여드림(직원은 절대 할인불가함)
 
 
  
 
 
  ◐부동산 처분건
  -서서울에서 30분거리 서해대교도로변 땅급매건
 
 
  
 
 
  ★ 주의사항★사장님이직접방문 구입할 경우
  중소기업 대표자 예우차원에서 10%할인
 
 
  
 
 
  1-상기 모든제품은 박스도 풀지않은 신품입니다(전제품
  무상보증서 포함되어있음)
 
 
  
 
 
  2-(대표자)결정권자가 직접방문
  구입하셔야합니다.모든제품은 (부가세 별도)입니다..
 
 
  
 
 
  3-상부에 결제 또는 보고를 드려야 하는 직원은
  출입을 금합니다.
 
 
  
 
 
  4-자세한 제품사양 및 모델은 전화상의로 문의할수없고
  창고로 직접 방문하셔서
 
 
  보시고 만족하시면 즉시 구입하시기 바랍니다.(세금계산서는의무적으로발행하여 드림)
 
 
  
 
 
  5-모든제품이(박스도 풀지않는제품)이지만
  LCD모니터19"형만은중고인관계로 무료로드림
 
 
  
 
 
  6-LCD빔프로젝터+레이져칼라프린터는 중고제품이며사장님이 방문구입바랍니다
 
 
  
 
 
  7-반드시 구입하실 날짜에 방문 하셔서 직접 보시고
  그자리에서 (금액을 완불바람)
 
 
  
 
 
  8-사장님이직접방문
  구입할 경우 중소기업 대표자 예우차원에서 10%할인하여드림
 
 
  필히 본 공문과 사업자등록증 사본, 신분증을 가지고 방문 (상기물품만 10%할인함)
 
 
  
 
 
  ☞업무시간:오전9시30분부터~오후6시까지(토요일은 쉽니다)
 
 
  
 
 
  ☞ 주 차:1층에서
  5층까지1톤화물차까지 편리함 (구입영수증이 있어야무료임)
 
 
  
 
 
  ☎(02)761-1407 FAX(02)783-2058-
  FAX(02)-784-5766
 
 
  
 
 
  ☞혼자서만 보시지마시고 신규 사장님에게도 알려 주시기
  바랍니다
 
 
  
 
 
  ☞주차- 한빛은행건물(하늘색) 지하 5층까지임 구입영수증이 있어야 무료임
 
 
  63빌딩바로 옆건물 한빛은행9층 사무기관리조합
  안내실로방문
 
 
  
 
 
  사   무  
  기   관   리   조  
  합
 
 
  
 
 
  본 메일은 단 한번만 발송되는 1회성 메일입니다.