Re: License furor

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:01:51PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> Vincent Stemen wrote:
> >On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:58:32PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> >
> >>Vincent Stemen wrote:
> >>
> >>>>People claim that this problem in the XFree86 1.1 License is similar to 
> >>>>the "advertising clause" problem of the original BSD license.  
> >>>>According to the GNU GPL website, that license was GPL incompatible 
> >>>>because of this clause in the GPL:
> >>>>"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' 
> >>>>exercise of the rights granted herein."
> >>>
> >>>Interesting.  I don't think I have seen that version of the BSD
> >>>license.  Yes, not only would that be GPL incompatible, but I think it
> >>>would restrict the BSD code from being used in commercial derived
> >>>products as well, similar the the GPL.  That must be a pretty old
> >>>license.
> >>
> >>The BSD License was revised to be its current form in 1999.
> >>Both forms may be found here (the revised one is first):
> >><http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#4>
> > 
> >I just looked there and there the line
> >
> >"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> >exercise of the rights granted herein."
> >
> >Is not in either license including the 1993 UCB/LBL one.  They are the
> >same licenses I have always seen.  If that statement came from a BSD
> >license, then I would like to see a link to it.
> 
> Look at your quote of me again.  I said "this clause in the GPL," not 
> "this clause in the BSD License."  So I can't give you link to a BSD 
> license for that, because it comes from the GPL 2, not any BSD license.

Sorry.  I misread your statement and thought you were refering to the
BSD license.  I must have had a late nite grokking glitch.


> >>XFree86 4.3.0 docs claim that there are many different versions of the 
> >>BSD license, but there have really only been two main ones (with the 
> >>UCB/LBL being a subset of the original license, which the docs kind of 
> >>show).
> >><http://www.xfree86.org/4.3.0/LICENSE4.html>
> >>
> >>>It actually goes both ways.  You are correct that it must satisfy both
> >>>licenses.  The reason I said you must use the most restrictive
> >>>licenses in a combined work is because the less restrictive licenses
> >>>such as the BSD or MIT, or even more relaxed, public domain, do not
> >>>prevent you from adding restrictions.  That is why you can include
> >>>their code in commercial projects.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>That is the reason we favor the less restrictive licenses, even over
> >>>the GPL, for primary projects, because that gives everybody more
> >>>freedom to utilize the code in branch projects and combine code with
> >>>code from other licenses, including commercial.
> >>
> >>I think that you are misusing the term "commercial license" here.  By 
> >>commercial, you really mean non-free (as in no-freedom, not as in 
> >>don't-have-to-pay-for), closed-source license.
> >
> >By commercial, I primarily meant code you have to pay for.
> >
> >>There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling the software 
> >>commercially.  Far from it.  You can sell GPLed software.
> >
> >
> >Where did you get that idea?  It is common knowledge that the GPL is
> >specifically designed to block commercial sale as well as make sure
> >source will always be available.
> 
> Red Hat, SuSe, Connectiva, Mandrake-Soft, and Lindows have had a viable 
> business of doing this for years.  If you can't get that from the GPL, 
> then look at the GPL FAQ, it's got a lot of questions and their answers 
> regarding selling GPLed software.  And there is no restriction to 
> "reasonable fees," either.  You are harping the typical misconceptions 
> of free software. 
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney>  You 
> might want to check out the "right to sell copies" and the "definition 
> of free software" link there.

Damn!  Looking over the FAQ, it looks like you are right.  We have
always known the license did not actually specify a re-distribution
price limit and left that area kind of grey, but it has always been
our understanding that the intent was to not allow you to directly
sell the software for an excessive profit.  We have been using GPL
software for well over 10 years and we have not gotten an impression
otherwise before now.  I still get the impression that the original
intent was otherwise and that they changed their view somewhere along
the way.  The license always said,

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy."

It never outright said you can sell the software, but the current FAQ
definitely clarifies the intent.  It seems to me if that was their
original intent when they wrote the license, it would have just said
"you can sell the software".  You called it typical misconceptions and
I believe you are right, but not about free software in general, just
about the GPL.  Everybody I know viewed it that way based on the
license wording and comments from others over the years.

Thanks for enlightening me :-).


> >It is designed to allow you to
> >charge a reasonable fee for distribution costs but not to actually
> >sell the software or derived works.  It mentions this in several
> >places, but here are a couple of the primary statements in the
> >license.
> >
> >    Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> >    have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
> >    for this service if you wish), ...
> >
> >    You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
> >    and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
> >    for a fee.
> >
> >>There are many companies doing it right now.  But it must stay under
> >>the GPL.  Any software that becomes a derivative work of GPL
> >
> >Like who?  Linux vendors, for example, are charging for distribution
> >costs, support, and add on commercial software.  Not directly for GPL'd
> >code.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm talking about.  And again, I think you're 
> loosing the point of what the Free Software Foundation means in Free 
> Software.  They mean free as in freedom, and only occasionally free as 
> in free beer.
> 
> >>>>Doing my best in trying to scan over the GPL, I don't think that the 
> >>>>modified BSD license is in reality GPL-compatible (if one is going to 
> >>>>nit-pick in the way that they are saying that XF86 1.1 License is 
> >>>>incompatible) because the modified BSD requires that both the source 
> >>>>code and the binary display the BSD license and the copyright notice, 
> >>>>whereas the the GPL only requires that the source code display the 
> >>>>license and copyright notice.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I just looked over the GPL version 2 again and it looks to me like it
> >>>does require the license to be included with the binaries which would
> >>>make it compatible with the BSD license.
> >>>
> >>>It says,
> >>>
> >>>  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> >>>  under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
> >>>  of Sections 1 and 2 above...
> >>>
> >>>Notice it says "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above".  And under
> >>>section 1, it says
> >>>
> >>>  ...keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to
> >>>  the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
> >>>  Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
> >>
> >>"Under the terms of Section 2" makes sense, however, "under the terms of 
> >>section 1," you are taking that "keep intact" statement out of context. 
> >>Section 1 still only talks about the source code, therefore "under the 
> >>terms of section 1" when when making requirements for "object code or 
> >>executable form" makes zero sense.  They may have tried to require that 
> >>the license be distributed with the binaries, but they haven't.
> >
> >
> >I disagree.  Read section 3 above again.  It clearly states you may
> >distribute it in executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2.
> >That means that section 1 does not apply only to source code.
> 
> You're not reading all of Section 1, which clearly states:
> 
> "1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source 
> code as you receive it, [...]"
> 
> How can Section 1 not apply to source code when it's clearly about 
> source code; never uses a generic term like, "Software" or "Program"; 
> and never uses a machine code term like "binary," "executeable," or 
> "object"?

Now you misread my statement :-)  I did not say it did not apply to
source code,  I said it dos not apply ONLY to source code.  It would
have to apply to binaries also in order for the statement

"...in executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"

to have any meaning.


> >To relate this back to the topic of license compatibility, TTBOMK,
> >that is why the FreeBSD license requirement of including the license
> >with binaries is not incompatible with the GPL.  Besides, since the
> >GPL requires source to be available as you mentioned, which also has
> >the license, there are two layers making sure that the license is
> >available for binaries.  So the BSD license does not apply any
> >requirements not already there.
> 
> Except, as I already pointed out, it is fallacious to assume that simply 
> because the source code is available that then the end user has 
> received the copyright and license information.  Many distribute source 
> code and binary code together, which is one way that you can satisfy the 
> GPL, and is the only case in which you are right.  It is also widely 
> practiced that only binaries are sold, and source code is a separate 
> matter and possibly an extra fee.  It is one thing for the license to be 
> made available to you, it is an entirely different matter to be given 
> the license.  For many, you must pay extra.  So again, it brings us back 
> to the quandry: if my logic is correct, it's possbile for someone to buy 
> GPLed software, and never get the license for their software because 
> they may have to pay extra or do extra to get it (along with the source 
> code).

I don't think that is the case.  If section 1 of the GPL applies to
binaries like the license says it does, then this is not going to
happen.  Apparently the FSF agrees because the GPL FAQ also states
that the new version of the BSD license is compatible.

-- 
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://www.InetAddresses.net

_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum

[Index of Archives]     [X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Questions]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [Samba]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux