A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Hi all, I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is actually used to impose specific restrictions. PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. Its licensing page[2] states: | Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require additional terms specific to | the types of software created using PySoy. The term game authors | should be aware of is that the PySoy and GPLv3 logos must be presented | to players in a legible manner and the GPLv3 text be accessible to | players (section 7b). | [...] | We provide textures for these logos and an easy mechanism to display | the GPLv3 license text as builtin classes so that this is as painless | as possible. Now I wonder: is this restriction really within the bounds of what section 7b allows to impose? Section 7b of GPLv3 states: [you may ... supplement the terms of this License with terms:] | b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or | author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal | Notices displayed by works containing it; or Can logos be considered "reasonable legal notices" or "author attributions"? What do you think? [1] http://www.pysoy.org/ [2] http://www.pysoy.org/wiki/License Should I add the usual disclaimers (IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP)? -- 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 pgpHzrNBH34tD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
On 9/6/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can logos be considered "reasonable legal notices" or "author > attributions"? > What do you think? A logo definitely isn't a legal notice, but it *could* be an author attribution (although to me it seems more a project attribution or even an advertisement.) If it is considered an author attribution, it's still only reasonable where the code is used as originally intended in a graphical environment. If the code were somehow adapted for non-graphical use there'd be issues. -- Andrew Donnellan <>< ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 00:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > Hi all, > I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is > actually used to impose specific restrictions. > > PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. > It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. > Its licensing page[2] states: > > | Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require additional terms specific to > | the types of software created using PySoy. The term game authors > | should be aware of is that the PySoy and GPLv3 logos must be presented > | to players in a legible manner and the GPLv3 text be accessible to > | players (section 7b). > | > [...] > | We provide textures for these logos and an easy mechanism to display > | the GPLv3 license text as builtin classes so that this is as painless > | as possible. > > > Now I wonder: is this restriction really within the bounds of what > section 7b allows to impose? I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable legal notices. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 00:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Hi all, I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is actually used to impose specific restrictions. PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. Its licensing page[2] states: | Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require additional terms specific to | the types of software created using PySoy. The term game authors | should be aware of is that the PySoy and GPLv3 logos must be presented | to players in a legible manner and the GPLv3 text be accessible to | players (section 7b). | [...] | We provide textures for these logos and an easy mechanism to display | the GPLv3 license text as builtin classes so that this is as painless | as possible. Now I wonder: is this restriction really within the bounds of what section 7b allows to impose? I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable legal notices. I agree. "Requiring preservation of specified reasonable" so is preservation: you cannot add further attributions (but if you write all the program, and you link to library that allow additional restrictions. Anyway it is not compatible with GPLv2 libraries. But I've the doubt with "reasonable". I don't think logo are "reasonable" either because logos have normally additional restrictions (trademarks, but i think also a GPLv3 logo is not enough for an "attribution"), and because of the same problems of old BSD license. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: [...] > I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of > section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but > to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link > the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable > legal notices. I don't agree: it is my understanding that GPLv3 section 7 does indeed allow adding (a limited set of) restrictions. Section 7 is a permission to add some restrictions. That is the main reason I dislike it: it weakens copyleft. The permission to add permissions has always been present in the GPL (at least from version 2): you can always add permissions to material you hold copyright for. My question was whether the restriction added by PySoy authors is compatible with GPLv3 section 7. If it is not, then GPLv3 section 7 states that the recipient is authorized to remove it (even though some people have argued that this is not possible, no matter what the GPLv3 text says...): | All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further | restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you | received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is | governed by this License along with a term that is a further | restriction, you may remove that term. If instead the restriction is compatible with GPLv3 section 7, well, then we have a concrete example of a non-free work released under the GNU GPL v3 (no surprise, I was expecting such a case sooner or later), since I do not think that such a restriction should be considered as a DFSG-free one... -- 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 pgpRQrlCI4lcT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:49 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > [...] > > I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of > > section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but > > to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link > > the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable > > legal notices. > > I don't agree: it is my understanding that GPLv3 section 7 does indeed > allow adding (a limited set of) restrictions. > Section 7 is a permission to add some restrictions. > That is the main reason I dislike it: it weakens copyleft. I think this is plain wrong. The purpose of this section is not to weaken copyleft, but to allow linking software with some other software with a moderately GPL-incompatible license. “Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. These are exceptions to the existing GPL terms, not new terms. > The permission to add permissions has always been present in the GPL (at > least from version 2): you can always add permissions to material you > hold copyright for. No. With GPL v3, you can add *or remove* these permissions at will, for whatever work. > My question was whether the restriction added by PySoy authors is > compatible with GPLv3 section 7. The PySoy authors' restriction cannot be added under GPLv3 section 7 (despite their claims), therefore PySoy cannot be considered licensed under the GPL. This restriction being compatible with section 7 would be interesting for using the library in GPLv3 software, but otherwise this is irrelevant. The real question is whether this work is DFSG-free, and if the logo cannot be changed, the answer is clearly "no". The upstream authors should be encouraged to remove that restriction and use a trademark license like Mozilla's instead, so that we could at least iceweasel-ify it. > If instead the restriction is compatible with GPLv3 section 7, well, > then we have a concrete example of a non-free work released under the > GNU GPL v3 (no surprise, I was expecting such a case sooner or later), > since I do not think that such a restriction should be considered as a > DFSG-free one... This work is *not* released under the GPLv3, and you cannot add such a restriction to an existing work released under the GPLv3. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:25:20 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:49 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > [...] > > > I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of > > > section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, > > > but to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to > > > link the program with a library that requires preservation of > > > reasonable legal notices. > > > > I don't agree: it is my understanding that GPLv3 section 7 does > > indeed allow adding (a limited set of) restrictions. > > Section 7 is a permission to add some restrictions. > > That is the main reason I dislike it: it weakens copyleft. > > I think this is plain wrong. The purpose of this section is not to > weaken copyleft, but to allow linking software with some other > software with a moderately GPL-incompatible license. > ___Additional permissions___ are terms that supplement the > terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of > its conditions. > These are exceptions to the existing GPL terms, not new terms. I fail to understand how you draw this conclusion. Let's go back to the text of section 7. | 7. Additional Terms. | | "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this | License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. | Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall | be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent | that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions | apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately | under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by | this License without regard to the additional permissions. | | When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option | remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of | it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own | removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place | additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, | for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission. First two paragraphs speak about additional permissions, which can be added on a part of the work, with the authorization of the copyright holder(s) of such part. Anyone can remove additional permissions, though. This is the same situation that holds for the GNU GPL v2, as far as I understand it. Only more explicitly stated. | Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material | you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright | holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with | terms: | | a) Disclaiming [...] or | | b) Requiring [...] or | | c) Prohibiting [...] or | | d) Limiting [...] or | | e) Declining to grant rights [...] or | | f) Requiring [...] This third paragraph with the enumerated list does not talk about additional permissions. It allows the recipient to add material which is licensed under the GPLv3 with additional terms that require something, or prohibit something else, and so forth. This allows to add material which is licensed in a *more* restrictive manner than the plain GPLv3 (without any of those additional terms). In other words, this paragraph is a permission to add restrictions. Not any restriction, though: only a limited set of additional restrictions are allowed. Nonetheless, some restrictions may be added. There is no such permission in the GNU GPL v2. A permission to add restrictions weakens the copyleft mechanism of a license. | | All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further | restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. Please note that the above additional terms are called "non-permissive". A diplomatic way to say that they are indeed additional restrictions. The only difference between them and the so-called "further restrictions" of section 10 is the former are allowed, while the latter are forbidden. Why? Just because the text of the license says so. | If the Program as you | received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is | governed by this License along with a term that is a further | restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains | a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this | License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms | of that license document, provided that the further restriction does | not survive such relicensing or conveying. This part tells you what you can do with "further restrictions", that is to say, with any additional restriction that does *not* fall in one of the six above enumerated categories: you can just drop them and move on. I explicitly acknowledge that some people have expr
