Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Harald Alvestrand wrote: Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." don't really apply in this case. 2 - The words of the GPL that say "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" don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL 3 - I'm breaking the GPL Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? 4 - The contradiction in licensing terms turns the work licensed by its own terms, that are not exactly those of the GPL. Furthermore, the original copyright holder breached the GPL *text* copyright. He did not breached the GPL itself since he is the original author of the work. The intent of the original copyright holder is clear however, despite a minor glith in document distribution. Simon and I and anyone else who whish to create derivative works under the GPL can fix it, and not carry forward the contradiction in licensing terms (the Harald intent above is not clear, the referenced work is not his work, and it is already released). Anyway, Harald highlighted a corner case in GPL licensing that creates some inconvenience (can't put GPL text in GPL'ed work, it must remain meta-data). IETF as a *document* editor is expected to use licensing terms that reasonably fits its purpose. The audience lobbyed by Simon should just live by inconvenience created by IETF licensing terms (no RFC text in GPL'ed software beyond fair use - it must remain as separate documentation). Routine open software distribution abide by these rules. Please preserve the integrity of IETF rules addressing the needs of a broader and a more diversified audience than the one lobbied by Simon. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where >> this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan >> suggesting that free software authors publish "free" (as in licensed >> under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not >> possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. > > BTW, why cannot a free software author license some particular > standards text under both RFC 5378 terms, and some other license > (a free software license, or even GPL)? > > Presumably, he/she owns the copyright, and 5378 terms are > non-exclusive. Obviously, for collaborative efforts this may require > that all copyright holders agree, and that may make this unpractical. > But I wonder if there was some other reason? No, that approach works fine as far as I can see. It has been used for some documents, and parts of some documents, already. That doesn't make the standard published by the IETF "free" as in free software licensed though. I admit this is a subtle distinction, and given the discussion, I must have explained this poorly. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: > Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where > this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan > suggesting that free software authors publish "free" (as in licensed > under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not > possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. BTW, why cannot a free software author license some particular standards text under both RFC 5378 terms, and some other license (a free software license, or even GPL)? Presumably, he/she owns the copyright, and 5378 terms are non-exclusive. Obviously, for collaborative efforts this may require that all copyright holders agree, and that may make this unpractical. But I wonder if there was some other reason? Best regards, Pasi ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Harald Alvestrand writes: >> This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at >> first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as >> this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it >> does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not >> normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. >> > But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is > this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC > (which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments > into a work? The only way I can see to avoid having the comment be part of the work is to use different licenses for the code and the comment. (Do you see any other way?) That is possible, but leads to problems. The result is a complex license on the combined work. The combined license says essentially something like "License A applies to portion X and the IETF Trust License applies to portion Y". That combined license may not be compatible with other licenses, both free and non-free licenses. For example, the combined license would not be compatible with the GPL because modifications of the entire work is not permitted. I believe it is possible to find proprietary licenses that have other clauses that render the license incompatible with the IETF Trust license. So the problem is wider than just free software licenses. I believe the IETF needs to realize that GPL software runs part of the Internet and that catering to these licensing needs is as important as catering to the licensing needs of, say, Microsoft. The license compatibility question is more relevant for free software because people are more conservative in evaluating software licenses in the free software community compared to the enterprise setting where licenses are typically only ever evaluated when someone sues or is sued by someone. My point has been that triggering this situation works counter to the goal of the IETF. In a strict setting, it means implementers cannot use verbatim text from RFCs, but needs to rewrite the text to avoid re-use of material under the IETF Trust license. I believe that opens up for interoperability problems (when a re-written comment is subtly different from the original meaning, and the comment influences code). If people decide that this rewriting needs to happen to avoid contamination from the IETF Trust license, it would also delay getting IETF protocols deployed. This has been my rationale for suggesting that IETF documents should be licensed under a free software compatible license. I am aware that battle is already lost, so I have mixed feelings about discussing this further. However if others bring up related topics I feel a need to respond. My hope is that it is possible to alter the policies in the future. Fortunately, I believe the new BCP 78 has created good ground to make that possible. Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish "free" (as in licensed under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. I'm happy to discuss both questions, but I'm concerned that you and others may believe that you dispute my first claim by discussing this separate issue. > With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a > license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to > copy it. > > With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you > don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have > the right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it. > > Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the > second is a show-stopper? I'm not saying the second is a show stopper. The Internet appears to work relatively well on most days. However, I insist that it is a potential impediment and that it works counter to the goals of the IETF. But to answer your question (heh!): I believe the situations are different because the first is about meta-data of a work, and the second results in a complex combined license. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org. 2 - The words of the GPL that say "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" don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC (which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments into a work? With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it. With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it. Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the second is a show-stopper? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org. Harald Alvestrand writes: >>> BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the >>> GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and >>> since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal >>> (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to >>> be free of restrictions upon its modification. >>> >> >> I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder >> for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information >> is unclear. > Simon, > > the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. > > There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. > I want to release this under the GPL. You can't release the text of the GPL under the GPL license, since you are not the copyright holder of the text in the GPL license. Further, the license of the GPL text does not permit re-licensing, or even modifications. > Now, I have three possible interpretations: > > 1 - The words of the GPL that say "Everyone is permitted to copy and > distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it > is not allowed." don't really apply in this case. That interpretation seems clearly bogus to me. > 2 - The words of the GPL that say "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" don't apply to modifications of the portion > of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. > 3 - I'm breaking the GPL That may hold as well, but without further elaboration I can't tell for sure. I compared the part of your work that consists of the GPL text with the canonical version [1]. It seems that someone has modified the license text: the section 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' is missing. If you had read that section, you would know of a better way to explain the licensing conditions to users that would have avoided the problem. I believe this violate the license on the GPL itself, so you may want to fix it. However, I don't think the FSF will care significantly about that problem. For more information, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html > Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included > text which is it? Your question comes up and is answered in Debian mailing lists from time to time: some people claim that Debian cannot distribute the GPL license text because it is not licensed under a free software license. /Simon [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
