IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Step 4 is wrong.
They still had the right to accept the code under GPLv2. You didn't force them to accept it under GPLv3. In fact you couldn't stop them from accepting it under GPLv3 as that would be a restriction of their rights under the license. Anybody they in turn distribute it to will also have the right to chose GPLv2 or later.

PS: If I got this right does that mean that everyone in the distribution chain of "GPLv2 or later" software can ignore the "web services" reqirements of GPLv3 at each point in the chain by choosing GPLv2 for their modifications? Wouldn't one have to license as "GPLv3 or later" to truly enforce the new rules?
--
Chris Altmann
New Half-right
You're right that if you recieve something that is GPL v2 or later, accepting it under the GPL v2 does not require your changes to be licensed GPL v2 only.

But the license "GPL v2 or later" does not require your changes to wind up licensed GPL v2 or later. Likewise the GPL v2 does not require you to license your changes GPL v2 or later if you received a program that was GPL v2 or later - GPL v2 only satisfies the requirements of the GPL v2.

Therefore it is admissable to recieve code that is licensed GPL v2 or later, and then redistribute a modified copy that is GPL v2 only.

I would be shocked if the GPL v3 did not likewise have language making it permissable to relicense something that was GPL v2 or later into GPL v3 or later.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Not so sure.
"Therefore it is admissable to recieve code that is licensed GPL v2 or later, and then redistribute a modified copy that is GPL v2 only."

I'm not so sure about that because of the following:

In section 1, the GPLv2 requires that you "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License" in a verbatim copy.
In section 2, it requires you to follow section 1 for modified programs as well.
Section 9 affirms your rights if the "any later version" language is in the copyright/license notice.

I don't see where one can remove the "or later" rights for further distributees.
--
Chris Altmann
New Hrm...
Excellent point. I'll ask a lawyer about that. If your interpretation is correct, then you shouldn't be able to mix GPL v2 only code with GPL v2 or later code.

I suspect that you'd satisfy all of the requirements if you included a copyright notice like this:


Silly Example 2 is a silly example of a program
Copyright (C) 2005 Bob the Modifier

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
published by the Free Software Foundation.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.


This is based on previous software, and therefore we must include the following notice:

Silly Example is a silly example of a program
Copyright (C) 1999 Alice the Originator

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.



You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA


But I won't swear to that.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New You can mix it, but wouldn't it all become v2 only?
If there is any code that is v2 only, the derevitive work would have to be v2 only.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Yabut..
The question is how to reconcile that with the need to remain all original copyright notices, one of which would grant the right to be GPL v2 or later.

That is, is GPL v2 only in conflict with GPL v2 or later?

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Depends on which came first
If the original work was v2 only, derivitives can not be v2 or later. If the original was v2 or later, someone can release a derivitive v2 only. That will create a fork, with anyone wanting those new changes constrained to v2 only, and anyone not needing those changes free to take the original work as v2 or later. OCIANAL
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Read atcroft's question again
What you described was my impression as well. What atcroft pointed out is that if the original is v2 or later, then the GPL v2 requires that all original copyright notices be left intact. But if they are left intact, then you are distributing with a copyright notice that gives permission on your code that is v2 or later, which gets in the way of your intent to release v2 only.

It is a subtle issue, but my thought (since confirmed as a first impression by someone who knows a lot more than me) was that keeping the notices intact is not the same as keeping the copyright statement intact. Therefore as long as your copyright statement includes a statement that you are including work from XXX, and keep the original copyright notices in the file (while making it clear that they're not your copyright notice), you can satisfy the GPL v2 and not have to apply the original copyright statement to your code.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Well, my instincts don't seem bad...
I asked Wendy Seltzer, whose reply was:
\nI haven't encountered this particular GPL question before, but I\nimagine it must be solved as you predict, not through the paradox of\na notice clause changing the meaning and intent of the rest of the\nlicense.  Most likely, section 1 would allow you to say for your new project\nProject Foo, Copyright (C) 2005\n    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify\n    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by\n    the Free Software Foundation, version 2.\nProject Foo includes code from Project Bar, available at <URL>,\nlicensed under GPL v2 or later.  Project Bar's original copyright\nnotices are as follows ...\n

So there is some ambiguity, but the first impression of a good lawyer with extensive GPL experience (not legal advice, yada yada yada) matched mine.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Wait a minute.

So she recommends that the derivative work be distributed v2 and only v2, in other words, that the work be pinned to v2, and this is a vindication of your position?

\r\n\r\n

Please tell me I'm just misinterpreting where this stands in the (now-enormous and hard to follow) thread.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
Expand Edited by ubernostrum Aug. 16, 2005, 11:36:32 PM EDT
New Not quite.
It was a followup to my assertion that one can't take a program license "GPLv2 or later" and modify and distribute it as "GPLv2 only" to downlevel recipients.

Ben and the lawyer's opinion is that one *can* do that as long as one keeps the original copyright notice intact, thereby leaving the original code to be under "GPLv2 or later" and one's modifications to be explicitly under GPLv2 (think the later was part of your reasoning, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Having read some other opinions on it I'm starting to gravitate to their side on that, but for some reason it doesn't "feel" right.

Then my eyes glazed over and I found I didn't really care that much :)

--
Chris Altmann
New You got it
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
     More good points - (imric) - (66)
         Re: More good points - (ubernostrum) - (63)
             Technical mistake - (ben_tilly) - (61)
                 I'm not so sure - (ubernostrum) - (60)
                     Nope. Talk to a lawyer. - (ben_tilly) - (59)
                         That's the thing - (ubernostrum) - (58)
                             You've missed the point, let me simplify - (ben_tilly) - (57)
                                 How do modifications/contributions work, then? - (ubernostrum) - (56)
                                     Any lawyer will tell you that that is a non-issue - (ben_tilly) - (55)
                                         Doesn't change anything - (ubernostrum) - (54)
                                             I suggest that you talk to a lawyer if you're concerned - (ben_tilly) - (53)
                                                 OK, bad wording. - (ubernostrum) - (52)
                                                     Again, you're not a lawyer. Don't try to play one. - (ben_tilly) - (51)
                                                         A question - (ubernostrum) - (50)
                                                             Answer - (ben_tilly) - (49)
                                                                 But it does - (ubernostrum) - (48)
                                                                     I granted one point, not the other - (ben_tilly) - (47)
                                                                         Let's try it again, then - (ubernostrum) - (44)
                                                                             Ahh, now I get you - (drewk) - (4)
                                                                                 Not quite - (ubernostrum) - (3)
                                                                                     I'm trying to figure out why you don't "get" this - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                                                         Modifications are only made under the terms of one license - (ubernostrum) - (1)
                                                                                             Where does the GPL v2 say that? - (ben_tilly)
                                                                             Step 4 is wrong. - (ben_tilly) - (38)
                                                                                 Re: Step 4 is wrong. - (ubernostrum) - (37)
                                                                                     Re: Step 4 is wrong. - (altmann) - (11)
                                                                                         Half-right - (ben_tilly) - (10)
                                                                                             Not so sure. - (altmann) - (9)
                                                                                                 Hrm... - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                                                                                     You can mix it, but wouldn't it all become v2 only? - (drewk) - (3)
                                                                                                         Yabut.. - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                                                                             Depends on which came first - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                                                 Read atcroft's question again - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                                 Well, my instincts don't seem bad... - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                                                                     Wait a minute. - (ubernostrum) - (2)
                                                                                                         Not quite. - (altmann) - (1)
                                                                                                             You got it -NT - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                     Step 7 in your logic is wrong - (ben_tilly) - (24)
                                                                                         Re: Step 7 in your logic is wrong - (ubernostrum) - (23)
                                                                                             You are not doing that though! - (ben_tilly) - (22)
                                                                                                 Re: You are not doing that though! - (ubernostrum) - (21)
                                                                                                     BUT YOU'RE NOT IMPOSING!!! - (ben_tilly) - (19)
                                                                                                         BUT FREEDOM MUST BE FREE! - (ubernostrum) - (18)
                                                                                                             Are you actively trying to be stupid? - (ben_tilly) - (17)
                                                                                                                 This is entertaining; but weirdly hypothetical, isn't it? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                                     Here's some clarifications on your take. - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                                                 Your mother was a hamster - (ubernostrum) - (8)
                                                                                                                     Interesting - (ben_tilly) - (7)
                                                                                                                         Ben, you ignorant slut - (ubernostrum) - (6)
                                                                                                                             Your intended point was not what you accomplished - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                                                                                                                                 Riddle me this - (ubernostrum) - (4)
                                                                                                                                     The riddle is trivial - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                                                                                                         Ah, Ben, you didn't meditate. - (ubernostrum) - (2)
                                                                                                                                             I don't know of anywhere that this has been asked - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                                                                             Future versions don't have to remain compatible - (drewk)
                                                                                                                 And your father smelt of elderberries - (ubernostrum) - (3)
                                                                                                                     And you have the brains of a chihuahua - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                                                                                         See, here's the thing - (ubernostrum) - (1)
                                                                                                                             That is a misunderstanding I hadn't quite anticipated - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                                                 Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time - (ubernostrum) - (1)
                                                                                                                     What do the other definitions say? - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                                     What does this mean? - (drewk)
                                                                         Re: I granted one point, not the other - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                             No, we really are arguing different points - (ben_tilly)
             Well, the actual draft isn't available yet. - (imric)
         I don't really have a dog in this fight - (hnick) - (1)
             Actually they started as extremists -NT - (ben_tilly)

Unfortunately, the hard part is moderation...
192 ms