Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
Confusion abounds in the GNU land.
GNUtian John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> Think of a license as being attached to the physical copies that you
> distribute under it, not to the abstract concept of the "work". Just
And yet "You are not required to accept this License in order to
receive a copy of the Program." (upcoming GPLv3 9.[5] Not a Contract.)
In other news, Moglen freed blobs (free as in exempted from free as in
freedom).
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html
("From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux kernel,
they're just data.")
And that's in spite of them being nothing but object code "which the
GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is
part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."
Riots arose all over the GNU Republic. The Coalition Death To Unfree
Blobs (free as in freedom, not price) called for emergency meeting of
the GNU Congress to free (as in impeachment) Eben from vice presidency.
The !GNU Movement in Underground and Stratosphere of the GNU Land also
promised to free Eben (as in "I let him go" by Schwarzenegger) for
stealing the idea from their yall (yet another license loophole)
0.6.6.6.oo that shows how to place the !GPL'd code in a separate
thread to be executed on a separate core or a processor. In
recognition of that grandiose theft event, the !GNU Movement in
Underground and Stratosphere of the GNU Land renamed yall 0.6.6.6.oo
into 0.6.6.6.bloby-eben and obtained a design patent (valid in
underground and stratosphere of the GNU land) on a t-shirt with a
slogan "Bloby Eben, bloby Eben, we'll set you free."
The President Stallman refused to make any comments except a short
statement "The GNU GPL is /my/ literary work, not Eben's".
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
"zapro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, the main concern behind my doubts is (or was) the following: > > If I had distributed v1.0 of my code under GPL, that grants other users > the rights to modify, redistribute it and republish it under the same > terms. If I understand well, it's like I am not the owner of the code: > I just wrote it. Yes and no: only you yourself can sue for breaches of copyright: redistributors can only claim copyright on their changes (which may be insignificant). > So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0: other people > could have made useful programs with it, and republished > it. However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the > license, even making it proprietary. Is this correct? No need to make changes: the license is what accompanies the individual copies. You can hand out the same code under different licenses. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
zapro writes: > I see, thanks John. Yes I am the sole copyright owner. I also found > this very clear Licensing howto by esr: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing > stating the same things you said. It's good to hear that Eric got it right :) > If I had distributed v1.0 of my code under GPL, that grants other users > the rights to modify, redistribute it and republish it under the same > terms. If I understand well, it's like I am not the owner of the code: I > just wrote it. You are the owner of the code. You have granted recipients of copies certain rights under the terms of the GPL. > So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0: other people could > have made useful programs with it, and republished it. You cannot revoke the rights you have granted to those people (without cause). However, releasing a copy under a different license does not affect their rights. > However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the license, > even making it proprietary. Is this correct? There is no need for a new version. You could release the exact same work simultaneously under the GPL and the Microsoft EULA, under the GPL first and the EULA second, or the reverse. Think of a license as being attached to the physical copies that you distribute under it, not to the abstract concept of the "work". Just because you licensed a copy to me under the GPL does not preclude you from licensing a copy to Isaac under closed-source terms, nor do the terms under which you license a copy to him affect my rights in any way. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
John Hasler wrote: > zapro writes: > If you are the sole copyright owner, of course. You can distribute your > work under any terms you wish. The terms under which you have previously > distributed it are irrelevant. If you are not the sole copyright owner you > must get the agreement of all the other owners. I see, thanks John. Yes I am the sole copyright owner. I also found this very clear Licensing howto by esr: http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing stating the same things you said. > > Going beyond my specific problem, I guess I am confused by the concept of > > "different": to what extent two pieces of code can be considered > > different in order to be published with at least "similar" licenses (such > > as the GPL / LGPL), also provided the author is the same? > > I am confused by your question. Sorry about that. I guess the question derived from me not knowing what exactly copyright grants me, and to (wrongly) consider the GPL as a contract. > The fact that a work has been distributed > under the GPL is no bar to its copyright owner distributing it under other > terms. The license is a unilateral grant from you to others. It does not > bind you in any way. Well, the main concern behind my doubts is (or was) the following: If I had distributed v1.0 of my code under GPL, that grants other users the rights to modify, redistribute it and republish it under the same terms. If I understand well, it's like I am not the owner of the code: I just wrote it. So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0: other people could have made useful programs with it, and republished it. However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the license, even making it proprietary. Is this correct? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
zapro writes: > Across the years, while working on other projects, one of the files of > this application outgrew itself into a small yet independent library > which I would like to release with the LGPL license. Is this possible? If you are the sole copyright owner, of course. You can distribute your work under any terms you wish. The terms under which you have previously distributed it are irrelevant. If you are not the sole copyright owner you must get the agreement of all the other owners. > Going beyond my specific problem, I guess I am confused by the concept of > "different": to what extent two pieces of code can be considered > different in order to be published with at least "similar" licenses (such > as the GPL / LGPL), also provided the author is the same? I am confused by your question. The fact that a work has been distributed under the GPL is no bar to its copyright owner distributing it under other terms. The license is a unilateral grant from you to others. It does not bind you in any way. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
GNUtian John Hasler wrote: [...] > The license is a unilateral grant from you to others. It does not > bind you in any way. Only in the GNU Republic. Outside the GNU Republic, IP licenses are contracts that bind licensors not to sue licensees for IP infringement. And licensees are "bound" by license conditions and covenants. Except that the contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which encourages breach of a contract if it's economically efficient to do so. Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy interest. http://sunsite.queensu.ca/localov/dhoucc97/law2.htm http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/review/Contract/Alpa-1995/alpa2.html regards, alexander. -- This posting sort of infringes the copyright of PTravel. Or not. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?
Some years ago I released a GPL'd application. Across the years, while working on other projects, one of the files of this application outgrew itself into a small yet independent library which I would like to release with the LGPL license. Is this possible? The new library can be considered an extension of that original file (I wouldn't call that a library), in the sense that the main purpose behind it is similar, but every aspect of the implementation is different (to be precise, all function names / signatures are different, and the implementations are also consistently different). Going beyond my specific problem, I guess I am confused by the concept of "different": to what extent two pieces of code can be considered different in order to be published with at least "similar" licenses (such as the GPL / LGPL), also provided the author is the same? (I know, I know, the GPL and the LGPL are different...) ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
