Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:18:19PM +0100, Jens Ritter wrote: > > > "public domain" means that you can publish it under the GPL. > > This term means that the ones who are copyright owners do not enforce > > it but have placed it into the public domain. Which basically means > > that you can do anything with such a piece of software (even copyright > > it by yourself and sell it under NDAs and such). > > > > Releasing it under the GPL becomes an issue of politics (with regard > > to the upstream maintainers). > > This political problem is my concern here. I understand that I CAN (if I > wish) release the modified sources under the GPL. My specific question here > is whether I HAVE TO release it under the GPL if I link with the GNU > Readline library (which is GPL'ed). Noticed that the original upstream > code (which is in "public domain") has nothing to do with the Readline > library, only my modifications are related to it. Yes, you have to: every binary linked against a GPL'ed library must be redistributed under GPL. > > Thanks for your advise, Jens, but I think that I need more enlightenment. > > -- > Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- Francesco Tapparo| [EMAIL PROTECTED] fight for your software freedoms: www.fsf.org| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > Do I have really to relicense the whole even if the original code have had > nothing to do in the past with my Readline additions? One could ponder that > only _my_ part of the work is based on Readline. I will really appreciate > if someone could confirm/second Santiago's point here: am I not allowed to > just release _my_ modifications under the GPL, leaving the rest in the > public domain? Could someone please point to me the relevant part of GPL > that states that? The original work, sans readline support, will remain in the PD. You can distribute it by itself, as PD. The version with readline support is a derivative work of the readline library, and thus is no longer in the PD (the authors of readline have a copyright interest in it).Thus, that version must be released under the GPL. I don't know if you're laboring under the common misconception that a work (and all variants) must be uniformly licensed. You don't have to "relicense" anything here. Releasing a version under GPL has zero effect on other released versions (or even the same version distributed to someone else). There should be a FAQ for these things. Lynn
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:42:06PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > This political problem is my concern here. I understand that I CAN (if I > > wish) release the modified sources under the GPL. My specific question here > > is whether I HAVE TO release it under the GPL if I link with the GNU > > Readline library (which is GPL'ed). Noticed that the original upstream > > code (which is in "public domain") has nothing to do with the Readline > > library, only my modifications are related to it. > > I think you have to. By linking bibindex with readline, you are creating > "a work based on readline". According to the GPL under which readline > is distributed, you have to distribute all of the work under GPL. > > [ I think a well-known ftp client had to be relicensed to GPL because > of this reason (linking with readline), so there is a "precedent" ]. Thanks for your patience, Santiago, but I am really annoyed by this problem. Do I have really to relicense the whole even if the original code have had nothing to do in the past with my Readline additions? One could ponder that only _my_ part of the work is based on Readline. I will really appreciate if someone could confirm/second Santiago's point here: am I not allowed to just release _my_ modifications under the GPL, leaving the rest in the public domain? Could someone please point to me the relevant part of GPL that states that? > So I think you have two choices: > > a) Relicense the Debian package to GPL on your own. >This is legal, public domain may be relicensed to whatever you want. This will cause a political problem and I am not willing to do it. > b) Ask the maintainers to do so. They should not refuse if linking with >readline is in his TODO list for this package. No, in their TODO list there was only a mention to a history mechanism, not a explicit mention to the GNU redline library. BTW, in my patch that will be integrated to the next upstream release, there is a fallback to a rudimentary history control mechanism, implemented without Readline. Sorry, for all this discussion, but I prefer to clarify the issues here in debian-legal before approaching the upstream authors. -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > Could someone please point to me the relevant part of GPL that states that? I think it's point 2: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: [...] b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. -- "6eb605b5047c053a3eb9d0804537010e" (a truly random sig)
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > This political problem is my concern here. I understand that I CAN (if I > wish) release the modified sources under the GPL. My specific question here > is whether I HAVE TO release it under the GPL if I link with the GNU > Readline library (which is GPL'ed). Noticed that the original upstream > code (which is in "public domain") has nothing to do with the Readline > library, only my modifications are related to it. I think you have to. By linking bibindex with readline, you are creating "a work based on readline". According to the GPL under which readline is distributed, you have to distribute all of the work under GPL. [ I think a well-known ftp client had to be relicensed to GPL because of this reason (linking with readline), so there is a "precedent" ]. So I think you have two choices: a) Relicense the Debian package to GPL on your own. This is legal, public domain may be relicensed to whatever you want. b) Ask the maintainers to do so. They should not refuse if linking with readline is in his TODO list for this package. Thanks. -- "34d600a345bbdc33e2b28a1c313ebc63" (a truly random sig)
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:18:19PM +0100, Jens Ritter wrote: > "public domain" means that you can publish it under the GPL. > This term means that the ones who are copyright owners do not enforce > it but have placed it into the public domain. Which basically means > that you can do anything with such a piece of software (even copyright > it by yourself and sell it under NDAs and such). > > Releasing it under the GPL becomes an issue of politics (with regard > to the upstream maintainers). This political problem is my concern here. I understand that I CAN (if I wish) release the modified sources under the GPL. My specific question here is whether I HAVE TO release it under the GPL if I link with the GNU Readline library (which is GPL'ed). Noticed that the original upstream code (which is in "public domain") has nothing to do with the Readline library, only my modifications are related to it. Thanks for your advise, Jens, but I think that I need more enlightenment. -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am moving this discussion to debian-legal in order to get an advice on how > to proceed with this problem. > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:07:58AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > I see you have modified it to use readline, which is great, but since > > readline is GPLed, I think the complete Debian bibindex package should be > > released under GPL, not only the modifications for Debian as stated in the > > copyright file. > > Santiago is referring to a modification that I did to the biblook/bibindex > package to include history support at the command line. This item was in > the upstream ToDo list and an improved patch of mine has been incorporated > upstream to appear in the next release. > > I am attaching below the copyright file for my package. At the time I > created it, I did not pay attention to this problem of linking > against a > GPLéd (not LGPLéd) library. I am confused about what to do now. Although > the upstream source is "public domain", I cannot release the whole package > under the GPL, as it is actively maintained and the upstream authors may not > appreciate it. Could the licensing gurus enlighten me here? "public domain" means that you can publish it under the GPL. This term means that the ones who are copyright owners do not enforce it but have placed it into the public domain. Which basically means that you can do anything with such a piece of software (even copyright it by yourself and sell it under NDAs and such). Releasing it under the GPL becomes an issue of politics (with regard to the upstream maintainers). Usual disclaimer: I am not a laywer, etc. No legal advice given. foo bar. Jens --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 2048/E451C639 Jens Ritter Key fingerprint: 5F 3D 43 1E 24 1E CC 48 1E 05 93 3A A7 10 73 37
Re: bibindex should probably be GPLed.
I am moving this discussion to debian-legal in order to get an advice on how to proceed with this problem. On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:07:58AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > I see you have modified it to use readline, which is great, but since > readline is GPLed, I think the complete Debian bibindex package should be > released under GPL, not only the modifications for Debian as stated in the > copyright file. Santiago is referring to a modification that I did to the biblook/bibindex package to include history support at the command line. This item was in the upstream ToDo list and an improved patch of mine has been incorporated upstream to appear in the next release. I am attaching below the copyright file for my package. At the time I created it, I did not pay attention to this problem of linking against a GPLéd (not LGPLéd) library. I am confused about what to do now. Although the upstream source is "public domain", I cannot release the whole package under the GPL, as it is actively maintained and the upstream authors may not appreciate it. Could the licensing gurus enlighten me here? Please, Cc: followups to me as I am not subscribed to debian-legal. -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
