It is exactly the case. Both of these happen. GPL v2 forbids things that GPL v3 allows AND requires things that v3 forbids. That's why licenses are incompatible.Originally Posted by jwbrase
Cookies and cream
It is exactly the case. Both of these happen. GPL v2 forbids things that GPL v3 allows AND requires things that v3 forbids. That's why licenses are incompatible.
Cookies and cream
OFF TOPIC
Of course! First of all, a license is not a contract. This program is my work. Mine!. It belongs to me. "All rights reserved." You don't even have the right to read it in first place. If there is a copyright notice attached to it and a license draft refered, you can read the license and it may grant you some permissions. Indeed GPL grants you permission to do a few stuff provided you fulfill some requirements. The license does not legally enforce requirements over anybody. But without fulfilling its requirements there is nothing else that grants you the right to read the source code, redistribute copies, or even run binarys. Again, it's my work. Copyrighted. All rights reserved.
And yes, a Consumer Guarantee Act obviously refers to Consumers, which means people who buy products. Not people who download my work (with all rights reserved) from a website.
This Act implies that peolple cannot sell Free Software in New Zealand, or at least that people who sell it must give Guarantee, not the author.
If a person at her own will downloads it directly from a repository, without giving any credit card number, she is not a Consumer in first place. Even if both the person and my website are in New Zealand. If I send this software to this person independently of the person's will, that doesn't make her a Consumer either.
Last edited by leorolla; September 17th, 2010 at 11:13 AM.
Cookies and cream
If A distributes it under what you call GPLv2+, then obviously A is giving permission to B to distribute B's version under the exact same license, which is GPLv2+.
It sounds like religous dogma to me.
First, when I say GPLv2+, this is just a short name for attaching the standard copyright notice to the software we all know very well.
Whatever implications this copyright notice has when B receives a copy the program from A, which is otherwise protected by copyright laws, B needs to get it from the copyright notice. By copyright laws, B doesn't have the rights to read the code in first place. So one should explain how the first phrase of the copyright notice is giving B permission to do anything that B is doing, from reading it to redistributing it, and in case B decides to redistribute it, under what conditions ("conditions" meaning both the conditions B must fulfill to distribute and the conditions under which B will release it to C).
Whatever B is doing with the code, B must read this one-sentence copyrioght notice and explain why A is giving such permission.
That's whay I mean by GPLv2+. If has another legal meaning to you, I would like to know what it is and why it is so.
So, here I go again, point by point. I would be happy to know which points you think are correct and which ones are not.
1. B is giving C the permission to read/use/run/modify/redistribute it under GPLv2.
2. B is giving C the permission to read/use/run/modify/redistribute it under GPLv3.
3. B is giving C even more permissions than these two, just for example, "use" it under GPLv8.
4. The only thing that might grant B the permission to give C the permisson to "use" it under GPLv2 is by no means the poor one-phrase copyright notice in itself, but rather the text of GPLv2 that B will download from FSF's website, provided B fulfill its requirements.
5. The only thing that might grant B the permission to give C the permisson to "use" it under GPLv3 is by no means the poor one-phrase copyright notice in itself, but rather the text of GPLv3 that B will download from FSF's website, provided B fulfill its requirements.
6. There is no such asymmetry in the copyright notice clearly implying that point "4" is any more true than point "5" above. Maybe common practice, or the fact that "2 or later" made the number 2 appear in the notice unlike the number 3 are giving you this feeling. But otherwise, as long as the legal permissions A is giving to B are concerned, there is no such asymmetry.
7. Therefore, either you agree that "5" is true and you agree with my whole point, or you claim that "4" is not true, or else you claim "6" is not true. If "4" is wrong, then B doesn't even need to disclose its source code. B is s givng C permission use the program under what you think GPLv2+ means, period. B had no direct obligations to C in any case, and assuming "4" is wrong, B has fulfilled the A's requirements by simply leaving the copyright notice unchanged. So the only reasonable option left is that "6" would be wrong, and you need to better explain why there is such asymmetry.
Last edited by leorolla; September 17th, 2010 at 11:22 AM.
Ubuntu Cappuccino Scuro
It sounds more like the transitive property to me.
If A=B and B=C, then also A=C.
That's why they call free software licenses "Copyleft" instead of "Copyright". You're still thinking with a proprietary mindset. The whole purpose of copyleft is so that we can still have some limitations, but not be bound by some of the restrictions of copyright. It's freedom with some restrictions.
A uses GPLv2+, B releases under the exact same license without changing anything about the license, so C gets the benefits of the permissions set forth by A. If B would have legally changed to v3, C would be bound by v3.
Lotus Symphony is a great example of someone taking a copylefted software (OpenOffice.org 1.1.4), modifying it, and legally releasing it under a different license. You're only bound by the specific limitations that the original license sets.
That's the difference between copyleft and copyright. People who don't identify with that have the option to use a proprietary license.
Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You. - Dr. Seuss
Cookies and cream
This kind of statement won't become true by being repeated over and over.
Copyleft only exists because it's protected by the same laws that protect proprietary or semi-free software. If you want it it have any practical effect you have to analyse it from a pure copyright point of view. FSF should battle against people referring to copyleft as opposed to copyright because this generates such misunderstandings. From a legal point of view, copyleft is nothing but a clever use of copyrights.
You say I'm attached to a proprietary mindset. I'm not, I'm just trying to argue that the legal implications of the content of that copyright notice may not be what we want it to be, in spite of common practice.
Maybe you are attached to this "transitive" mindset.
Please read the remainder of the post you have just replied to and tell me which claims you think are right and which are not.
From the copyright notice, B would have the right to distribute code under GPLv2+ if GPLv2 contained a clause like "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you can redistribute this program with or without modifications under any later version provided you fulfill the requirements stated in section 2 of the present license". But that's not what it says there. This problem could have been fixed in GPLv3 if they said "If you received a copy with permissions to use this work under GPLv2 as well, you can distribute conveyed work under the terms of this license provided you fulfill the requirements stated in section 2 of that license." But that's not what it says there either.
Last edited by leorolla; September 17th, 2010 at 05:41 PM.
Way Too Much Ubuntu
"B" is vested with the power to grant "C" permission to distribute under the terms of the GPLv3 because "B" has made a copyrighted contribution to the joint work and is recognized under copyright law (in the U.S., anyway) as having the prerogative of granting to others any and all exclusive rights to the joint work as long as he has permission from the other co-authors of the joint work. In your scenario, this permission from the other co-authors has been granted by the notice included with the original, unmodified software that "B" received from "A".
In the event that "B" is providing "C" with unmodified software (from "A"), then "B" is NOT a co-author of the work and the authority for "C" to distribute under the terms of the GPLv3 is not necessarily being granted by "B", yet "C" is receiving it; the authority under which "C" can distribute under GPLv3 has been granted by "A".
Under the GPL, it does not matter how you obtain the software. You can receive a copy from "A", "B", "C", or any other letter of the alphabet and the licensing grants you receive are the ones specified in the copy you receive. It does not matter if "C" receives GPLed software from someone who is not complying with terms of the GPL -- or is complying with the terms of a different version of the GPL. It does matter if the software was sold, rented, borrowed, or stolen. The terms of the included GPL licensing apply to anyone who obtains a copy of the software.
If "C" has obtained an unmodified copy of "A"'s software then it does not matter whether "C" received it from "A" or from "B"; the permissions that "C" obtains are the same.
Even if your argument is that "B" does not have the right to distribute "A"'s unmodified GPLv2+ software as GPLv3-only (because "B" is then not a co-author of the work), I still don't think any court would agree. "A"'s copyright notice explicitly grants "B" the right to do this; and as the copyright holder of the work, "A" is authorized by copyright law to pass his exclusive rights to others (and one of those exclusive rights is the right to pass on exclusive rights to others). Either way, the point is somewhat moot. Being as it's GPLed, "C" should have little problem obtaining a copy of "A"'s software which has the original licensing terms intact.
Last edited by saulgoode; September 17th, 2010 at 06:42 PM.
"We visited sixty-six islands and landed eighty-one times, wading, swimming (to shore). Most of the people were friendly and delightful; only two arrows shot at us, and only one went near -- So much for savages!" - J.C. Patterson
Cookies and cream
In your scenario, this permission from the other co-authors [to distribute under the terms of the GPLv3] has been granted by the notice included with the original, unmodified software that "B" received from "A".
If you claim that the one-sentence copyright notice gave "B" such permission, then why does "B" need to disclosure source code? That's my point "6" above.
It does not matter if "C" receives GPLed software from someone who is not complying with terms of the GPL -- or is complying with the terms of a different version of the GPL.
"C" is fine. It's "B" who may be in trouble here. (See previous posts.)
If "C" has obtained an unmodified copy of "A"'s software then it does not matter whether "C" received it from "A" or from "B"; the permissions that "C" obtains are the same. ... "C" should have little problem obtaining a copy of "A"'s software which has the original licensing terms intact.
What if "C" is a guy who got a copy of this software installed inside an electronic device he has just bough, and "B" is Tivo? For "C", it doesn't matter whether the copy came from "A" or "B" since it is the same. But if it came from "B", it binds "B" to the license. If "B" is propagating the work, the fact that "C" could've got a copy from "A" doesn't exempt "B".
Ubuntu Cappuccino Scuro
B needs to disclose source code because B is bound to GPLv2+, and one of the regulations of GPLv2+ is that anyone distributing the software has to disclose the source code. Why is that a question?
If B is Tivo and Tivo used GPLv2+ software, then unless B is ignorant, B is going to choose to be bound to version 2 instead of version 3. It doesn't matter that C takes the software and chooses to be bound by GPLv3; B is still only bound to GPLv2 because that's what B chose to be bound by.
Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You. - Dr. Seuss
Way Too Much Ubuntu
"B" is obligated to fulfill the terms and conditions of the license so that he can engage in activities which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law. Neither "B"'s obligation nor the terms which he must satisfy are affected by any transaction that might occur between "A" and "C"; nor would it be affected by any transaction between "C" and "D", nor "A" and "D", ...
"B" doesn't have to fulfill the terms of ALL licenses attached (attachable?) to the software, if he satisfies the terms and conditions of just one of them then he can distribute copies without infringing upon "A"'s copyrights. "B" can even (and IIUC this is the part you contend) offer recipients the option of distributing copies under one of the other available licenses than the one upon which he himself is relying (e.g., a later version).
Last edited by saulgoode; September 17th, 2010 at 08:39 PM.
"We visited sixty-six islands and landed eighty-one times, wading, swimming (to shore). Most of the people were friendly and delightful; only two arrows shot at us, and only one went near -- So much for savages!" - J.C. Patterson
Posting Permissions
Adv Reply
Bookmarks