and the old posts from when we corrected the licensej
Argh, I didn't include before sending. Here are the old posts from my old mail, headers and all, with the discussions from when we fixed the license. I'd forgotten just how much more, uhh, perturbed John Weiss was about the High Church of Emacs than I was :) And it was Asger, not Lars, who committed the change. I'd been expecting one more round of editing, so there's a clause missing. 5) should have become 6), with the new 5) reserving the future editing to us rather than the FSF. (I wouldn't include this now; we really only get one bite at the apple on clarification). I also wasn't able to get the word muttonhead in, for which I again apologize to John Weiss :) hawk From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by eyry.econ.iastate.edu via in.smtpd with smtp id [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Smail3.2.0.101) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:59:22 -0600 (EST) Received: (qmail 3882 invoked by uid 514); 13 Jan 1999 18:00:29 - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-num: 1416 Received: (qmail 3870 invoked from network); 13 Jan 1999 18:00:28 - Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on IRIX X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:54:28 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Center for Computational Mechanics, Washington University, St. Louis Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Roland Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard E. Hawkins Esq. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: license clarification Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: RO Content-Length: 3243 Lines: 77 Hi My wife is a lawyer and I went to law school with her (sorta...) Anyway I have asked her earlier (in the contents of the whole Qt-KDE-GPL-RedHat mess). She pretty much said the exact same thing than you Rick. She wouldnt offer legal council even if I volunteered doing dishes for a week.. Anyway I think that you proposal sounds very reasonable even for non lawyers. A discussion with OSS enthusiasts will certainly follow but someone should really clarify this issue once and for all (of course there is no such thing in the law). Roland On 13-Jan-99 Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: While we're cleaning up, it might be a good idea to clarify the license, even if we don't switch. Regardless of our past statements, lyx is not GPL, but quasi-GPL. The act of releasing LyX under the GPL while it dependent upon xforms has two interpetations: 1) we're complete idiots and in violation of our license (the debian view :) 2) The license is modified by our actions (all Common Law (english speaking) countries, and I presume civil code countries, and I expect anywhere else where the rule of law is real). So before there's a KDE-style nightmare, I suggest language along these lines: While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it has in fact never been truly GPL. Particularly, it has always been linked to a closed source library. While some have taken a view that such actions violate the GPL, this is a legal impossibility. The law is quite clear that the release of the software by the original authors and copyright holders changed the licenses. Rather than leaving the issue to be debated, the following clarifications are given. This is not a change of license, but a clarification of the license that LyX has always used. 1) LyX is quasi-GPL software. The terms of the GPL apply save where they conflict with this statement. 2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software, source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to which LyX may be linked. Particularly, clauses *** of the GPL are rejected in their entirety. 3) There is no limitation on combining LyX source code with code subject to any other license, provided that the LyX source remains under this same license. Particularly, clause ** of the GPL is rejected in its entirety. 4) Any other clause or interpretation of the GPL limiting the combination of other software of any type and LyX is rejected in its entirety, provided that the LyX code and modifications to the LyX source dode remains under this same license. 5) Nothing in this statement purports to alter or interpret the license of any other software. Any combination of other software with LyX must also meet the requirements of that software. Although I'd prefer to replace the legal impossibility with only a complete muttonhead could conclude, but I suppose that would be impolitic :) rick, esq. -- Roland Krause Visiting Research Associate - Center for Computational Mechanics Washington University,
and the old posts from when we corrected the licensej
Argh, I didn't include before sending. Here are the old posts from my old mail, headers and all, with the discussions from when we fixed the license. I'd forgotten just how much more, uhh, perturbed John Weiss was about the High Church of Emacs than I was :) And it was Asger, not Lars, who committed the change. I'd been expecting one more round of editing, so there's a clause missing. 5) should have become 6), with the new 5) reserving the future editing to us rather than the FSF. (I wouldn't include this now; we really only get one bite at the apple on clarification). I also wasn't able to get the word "muttonhead" in, for which I again apologize to John Weiss :) hawk >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by eyry.econ.iastate.edu via in.smtpd with smtp id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:59:22 -0600 (EST) Received: (qmail 3882 invoked by uid 514); 13 Jan 1999 18:00:29 - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-num: 1416 Received: (qmail 3870 invoked from network); 13 Jan 1999 18:00:28 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on IRIX X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:54:28 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Center for Computational Mechanics, Washington University, St. Louis Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: license clarification Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: RO Content-Length: 3243 Lines: 77 Hi My wife is a lawyer and I went to law school with her (sorta...) Anyway I have asked her earlier (in the contents of the whole Qt-KDE-GPL-RedHat mess). She pretty much said the exact same thing than you Rick. She wouldnt offer legal council even if I volunteered doing dishes for a week.. Anyway I think that you proposal sounds very reasonable even for non lawyers. A discussion with OSS enthusiasts will certainly follow but someone should really clarify this issue once and for all (of course there is no such thing in the law). Roland On 13-Jan-99 Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: > > While we're cleaning up, it might be a good idea to clarify the > license, even if we don't switch. > > Regardless of our past statements, lyx is not GPL, but quasi-GPL. > > The act of releasing LyX under the GPL while it dependent upon xforms > has two interpetations: > 1) we're complete idiots and in violation of our license (the debian >view :) > 2) The license is modified by our actions (all Common Law (english >speaking) countries, and I presume civil code countries, and I >expect anywhere else where the rule of law is real). > > So before there's a KDE-style nightmare, I suggest language along these > lines: > > "While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it > has in fact never been truly GPL. Particularly, it has always been > linked to a closed source library. While some have taken a view that > such actions violate the GPL, this is a legal impossibility. The law > is quite clear that the release of the software by the original authors > and copyright holders changed the licenses. > > "Rather than leaving the issue to be debated, the following > clarifications are given. This is not a change of license, but a > clarification of the license that LyX has always used. > > "1) LyX is quasi-GPL software. The terms of the GPL apply save where > they conflict with this statement. > > "2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software, > source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to > which LyX may be linked. Particularly, clauses *** of the GPL are > rejected in their entirety. > > "3) There is no limitation on combining LyX source code with code > subject to any other license, provided that the LyX source remains > under this same license. Particularly, clause ** of the GPL is > rejected in its entirety. > > "4) Any other clause or interpretation of the GPL limiting the > combination of other software of any type and LyX is rejected in its > entirety, provided that the LyX code and modifications to the LyX > source dode remains under this same license. > > "5) Nothing in this statement purports to alter or interpret the > license of any other software. Any combination of other software with > LyX must also meet the requirements of that software." > > Although I'd prefer to replace the "legal impossibility" with "only a > complete muttonhead could conclude", but I suppose that would be > impolitic :) > > rick, esq. > > -- > Roland
