Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
begin John Cowan quotation: > The U.S. Copyright Act, at least (section 106), speaks of "prepar[ing] > derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" as one of the > exclusive rights of authors. So in theory at least you are not > allowed even to translate your copy of _Foundation and Empire_ into > Javanese, since that is preparing a derivative work. Yes, but... The specific example concerned software works reusing third-party GPLed code with newer code under an incompatible licence. The GPL's restrictions in question apply upon distribution, and not before. (Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm rushed, again.) -- Cheers,"Please return all dogmas to their orthodox positions." Rick Moen -- Brad Johnson, in r.a.sf.w.r-j [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
Rick Moen wrote: > Strictly speaking, you're not barred from _making_ works with > incompatible licences; the derivative work would just not be lawfully > _distributable_, as so doing would violate the licensing terms of the > third-party borrowed work. The U.S. Copyright Act, at least (section 106), speaks of "prepar[ing] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" as one of the exclusive rights of authors. So in theory at least you are not allowed even to translate your copy of _Foundation and Empire_ into Javanese, since that is preparing a derivative work. General legal considerations like *de minimis* enter into play here, of course. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
begin John Cowan quotation: > Suppose there are three original works: A under the GPL, B under the > MIT, C under the MPL. You may create a derivative work A+B and license > it under the GPL. You may not license A+B under the MIT, because > you are not allowed to create derivatives of A that are not licensed > under the GPL. Strictly speaking, you're not barred from _making_ works with incompatible licences; the derivative work would just not be lawfully _distributable_, as so doing would violate the licensing terms of the third-party borrowed work. Ditto for the other hypotheticals where you said "You may not create" (Pardon the small niggle, please. Your general point was, as usual, well taken.) -- Cheers,"Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is someone else's doxy." Rick Moen -- William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester (1698-1779) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
Henningsen wrote: > My understanding is this: As the copyrightholder to my code, even if I > release it under the GPL, I am not bound by the terms of the GPL, and can > include code under a different license such as the MIT license. However, if > someone else uses my code under the terms of the GPL, and wants to release a > modified version of my code, then according to 2.b) he would have to license > the entire program under the terms of the GPL, *including the parts that he > received under the terms of the MIT license*. I had been thinking that it > would not be legal to simply take MIT licensed code (or Tcl/Tk licensed > code) and without permission of the copyright holder re-release it under the > GPL. In order to understand questions such as this, one must maintain a vital distinction in mind: the difference between the license applied to an *original* work, and the license that may be applied to a *derived* work such as a program made using sources from various authors. In either case, it is the creator of the work who decides what licenses to apply, if any. 1. You may license your original works under any license(s) you choose. 2. If someone else assigns you copyright in their works (and this must be done in writing), then you may license those works under any license(s) you choose. 3. If you make a derivative work containing others' content, you may license it under any license(s) that are compatible with the licenses applicable to each of the original works that you used. You may not change the licenses applied to those original works. Suppose there are three original works: A under the GPL, B under the MIT, C under the MPL. You may create a derivative work A+B and license it under the GPL. You may not license A+B under the MIT, because you are not allowed to create derivatives of A that are not licensed under the GPL. You may not create a derivative work A+C at all, because the MPL imposes restrictions that are incompatible with the GPL: A+C cannot be licensed under either the GPL or any other license. But if A belongs to you (in the sense of points 1 or 2 above), then you may license it under the MPL as well as the GPL, and then A+C can be created and licensed under the MPL. If C does not belong to you, then you cannot relicense it under the GPL. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
I will only integrate contributor's code into my codebase if they hand over
copyright to alifegames.com (in exchange for a fair share of any profits
that may derive from commercial licenses to the code in the future), so I
will be able to release my own core code at any time under any license I
wish. What I am wondering about is the code that comes into the project with
other copyrightholders, and under a license different from the GPL, e.g. the
MIT license. The GPL states:
2.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.
My understanding is this: As the copyrightholder to my code, even if I
release it under the GPL, I am not bound by the terms of the GPL, and can
include code under a different license such as the MIT license. However, if
someone else uses my code under the terms of the GPL, and wants to release a
modified version of my code, then according to 2.b) he would have to license
the entire program under the terms of the GPL, *including the parts that he
received under the terms of the MIT license*. I had been thinking that it
would not be legal to simply take MIT licensed code (or Tcl/Tk licensed
code) and without permission of the copyright holder re-release it under the
GPL.
The responses I got on the list seem to indicate that I am wrong, and this
re-release under a different license that imposes more conditions would in
fact be legal. However, no one addressed this point directly and clearly,
and I am still unsure of the legality of that process. Would anyone be
willing to address this directly?
Peter Henningsen
alifegames.com
At 12:45 PM 6/19/01 -0700, Danese Cooper wrote:
>>At Sun, we license OpenOffice.org code under both the LGPL and SISSL.
>>Since only the copyright holder can change licensing terms for a body
>>of code, we collect copyright assignments from contributors (whether
>>they are working under LGPL or SISSL). The point is that we have to
>>work at keeping the codebase "whole" under both licenses.
>>
>>About including code you don't "own" (by copyright) in such a scheme. In
>>NetBeans there were several libraries which we didn't own and didn't have
>>rights to redistribute. We included these as binaries with the author's
>>permission and modified our build system to use the binaries...
>>
>>Danese
>>
>>>on Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:38:55AM -0300, Henningsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I want to release code I write myself under a dual license scheme,
both GPL and commercial license, the latter for people who want to use
the code in closed source projects. In my project I would like to
include code released under the Tcl/Tk license model ("keep copyright
notices in place, and keep this license text with the code"), and code
released under the MIT license.
I checked on the FSF's site whether these licenses are compatible with
the GPL, and didn't find anything. Are they or are they not? And if
they're not, would that mean that people who want to use my
GPL-released code could not also use the code modules with
incompatible licenses unless they got a special permission from me (in
effect a free commercial license)?
>>>
>>>Peter:
>>>
>>>First, IANAL.
>>>
>>>Dual licensing of your own code doesn't (generally) require
>>>"compatibility" between licenses, defined as the ability for software
>>>under one license to be used under the terms of another.
>>>
>>>This is effectively a logical OR: compatibility requires that,
>>>excepting other arrangements with the copyright holder(s), you can use
>>>alternative or additional licensing terms. This is a small set of
>>>licenses.
>>>
>>>Dual (or multiple) licensing, on the other hand, is a logical AND.
>>>You're saying that any of the specified licenses is sufficient to meet
>>>the legal obligations for software copying, modification, distribution,
>>>or other 17 USC (or Berne, internationally) exclusive rights under
>>>copyright.
>>>
>>>The issue that may then arise is the introduction of third-party code
>>>into your project. So long as this code is introduced under the same
>>>dual/multi license terms, there are no compatibility issues raised.
>>>However, if code is contributed under only one, or some other subset, of
>>>licenses, the codebase as a whole becomes restricted as to which
>>>portions can be used under what terms under altnernative licensing
>>>arrangements.
>>>
>>>As an example, I do work under Python. Until now, Python has been
>>>licensed under terms similar to the BSD/MIT license. Last week, Guido
>>>van Rossum announced that license compatibility with the GNU GPL had
>>>been achieved. I would prefer to license my own code under the
>>>GPL/LGPL, and preferably no other terms. This could create a conflict
>>>for those who are using Python in, say, p
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
At Sun, we license OpenOffice.org code under both the LGPL and SISSL.
Since only the copyright holder can change licensing terms for a body
of code, we collect copyright assignments from contributors (whether
they are working under LGPL or SISSL). The point is that we have to
work at keeping the codebase "whole" under both licenses.
About including code you don't "own" (by copyright) in such a scheme. In
NetBeans there were several libraries which we didn't own and didn't have
rights to redistribute. We included these as binaries with the author's
permission and modified our build system to use the binaries...
Danese
>on Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:38:55AM -0300, Henningsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I want to release code I write myself under a dual license scheme,
>> both GPL and commercial license, the latter for people who want to use
>> the code in closed source projects. In my project I would like to
>> include code released under the Tcl/Tk license model ("keep copyright
>> notices in place, and keep this license text with the code"), and code
>> released under the MIT license.
>>
>> I checked on the FSF's site whether these licenses are compatible with
>> the GPL, and didn't find anything. Are they or are they not? And if
>> they're not, would that mean that people who want to use my
>> GPL-released code could not also use the code modules with
>> incompatible licenses unless they got a special permission from me (in
>> effect a free commercial license)?
>
>Peter:
>
>First, IANAL.
>
>Dual licensing of your own code doesn't (generally) require
>"compatibility" between licenses, defined as the ability for software
>under one license to be used under the terms of another.
>
>This is effectively a logical OR: compatibility requires that,
>excepting other arrangements with the copyright holder(s), you can use
>alternative or additional licensing terms. This is a small set of
>licenses.
>
>Dual (or multiple) licensing, on the other hand, is a logical AND.
>You're saying that any of the specified licenses is sufficient to meet
>the legal obligations for software copying, modification, distribution,
>or other 17 USC (or Berne, internationally) exclusive rights under
>copyright.
>
>The issue that may then arise is the introduction of third-party code
>into your project. So long as this code is introduced under the same
>dual/multi license terms, there are no compatibility issues raised.
>However, if code is contributed under only one, or some other subset, of
>licenses, the codebase as a whole becomes restricted as to which
>portions can be used under what terms under altnernative licensing
>arrangements.
>
>As an example, I do work under Python. Until now, Python has been
>licensed under terms similar to the BSD/MIT license. Last week, Guido
>van Rossum announced that license compatibility with the GNU GPL had
>been achieved. I would prefer to license my own code under the
>GPL/LGPL, and preferably no other terms. This could create a conflict
>for those who are using Python in, say, proprietary applications, but
>would then have to determine whether or not they could incorporate code
>authored by me, and/or under what terms.
>
>Multiple licensing is an interesting hack, but it's not without its own
>set of additional issues as well.
>
>In your own case, my general understanding is that the MIT and Tcl/Tk
>licenses should be compatible.
>
>I'd be interested in other viewpoints on this.
>
>--
>Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
> What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
> http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
> Are these opinions my employer's? Hah! I don't believe them myself!
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
Henningsen scripsit: > I checked on the FSF's site whether these licenses are compatible with the > GPL, and didn't find anything. Are they or are they not? The MIT license definitely is: see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html under "X11 license". The Tcl/Tk license is not particularly mentioned on that page, but it is surely compatible, since it demands nothing that the GPL does not also demand. Anyhow, isn't Tcl/Tk under the new BSD license? SourceForge seems to think so. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
on Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:38:55AM -0300, Henningsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I want to release code I write myself under a dual license scheme,
> both GPL and commercial license, the latter for people who want to use
> the code in closed source projects. In my project I would like to
> include code released under the Tcl/Tk license model ("keep copyright
> notices in place, and keep this license text with the code"), and code
> released under the MIT license.
>
> I checked on the FSF's site whether these licenses are compatible with
> the GPL, and didn't find anything. Are they or are they not? And if
> they're not, would that mean that people who want to use my
> GPL-released code could not also use the code modules with
> incompatible licenses unless they got a special permission from me (in
> effect a free commercial license)?
Peter:
First, IANAL.
Dual licensing of your own code doesn't (generally) require
"compatibility" between licenses, defined as the ability for software
under one license to be used under the terms of another.
This is effectively a logical OR: compatibility requires that,
excepting other arrangements with the copyright holder(s), you can use
alternative or additional licensing terms. This is a small set of
licenses.
Dual (or multiple) licensing, on the other hand, is a logical AND.
You're saying that any of the specified licenses is sufficient to meet
the legal obligations for software copying, modification, distribution,
or other 17 USC (or Berne, internationally) exclusive rights under
copyright.
The issue that may then arise is the introduction of third-party code
into your project. So long as this code is introduced under the same
dual/multi license terms, there are no compatibility issues raised.
However, if code is contributed under only one, or some other subset, of
licenses, the codebase as a whole becomes restricted as to which
portions can be used under what terms under altnernative licensing
arrangements.
As an example, I do work under Python. Until now, Python has been
licensed under terms similar to the BSD/MIT license. Last week, Guido
van Rossum announced that license compatibility with the GNU GPL had
been achieved. I would prefer to license my own code under the
GPL/LGPL, and preferably no other terms. This could create a conflict
for those who are using Python in, say, proprietary applications, but
would then have to determine whether or not they could incorporate code
authored by me, and/or under what terms.
Multiple licensing is an interesting hack, but it's not without its own
set of additional issues as well.
In your own case, my general understanding is that the MIT and Tcl/Tk
licenses should be compatible.
I'd be interested in other viewpoints on this.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
Are these opinions my employer's? Hah! I don't believe them myself!
PGP signature
license-mix, legal consequences?
I want to release code I write myself under a dual license scheme, both GPL
and commercial license, the latter for people who want to use the code in
closed source projects. In my project I would like to include code released
under the Tcl/Tk license model ("keep copyright notices in place, and keep
this license text with the code"), and code released under the MIT license.
I checked on the FSF's site whether these licenses are compatible with the
GPL, and didn't find anything. Are they or are they not? And if they're not,
would that mean that people who want to use my GPL-released code could not
also use the code modules with incompatible licenses unless they got a
special permission from me (in effect a free commercial license)?
Peter Henningsen
alifegames.com
