Re: Step 4 is wrong.

Post #219,085 by ubernostrum 8/12/05 4:59:54 PM 8/12/05 5:02:28 PM Reply	Re: Step 4 is wrong. Ben, I've been supporting my claim, and providing reasoning for it. Over. And over. And over. But here we go, one more time. Step by step, with complete explanation: \r\n\r\n \r\n If a program is offered to me with a choice of different licenses, I must choose one of the offered licenses and abide by its terms. \r\n Therefore, if a program is offered to me with the choice of licensing under GPLv2 "or any later version", then if and when I take an action which would be covered by the GPL I must, per point (1), choose a specific version of the GPL from those available, and accept and abide by its terms. \r\n Let us assume that I receive a program with such a license offer, and wish to modify it and distribute the modified version. Let us further assume that, per point (2), I select version 2 of the GPL and accept its terms. \r\n Let us assume that as I engage in such distribution, I attempt to comply with the terms of version 2 of the GPL by offering to license the modified program to third parties under the terms of version 2 of the GPL "or any later version". \r\n Let us assume that version 3 of the GPL is released, and that it imposes restrictions on use, distribution or modification which are not present in version 2 of the GPL. \r\n Let us assume that, once version 3 of the GPL is released, a third party receives a copy of the modified program from me and, noting the offer of "any later version", decides to accept this copy under the terms of version 3 of the GPL. \r\n In so doing, I have provided a modified copy of the program to a third party while imposing upon that third party further restrictions on that third party's exercise of rights granted under version 2 of the GPL. \r\n Per Section 6 of version 2 of the GPL, I am in violation of version 2 of the GPL. \r\n \r\n\r\n Conclusion: if version 3 of the GPL is incompatible with version 2 of the GPL, then I may not make the offer of "version 2 of the GPL, or any later version" to third parties to whom I provide copies and/or modifications of a program which I began distributing and/or modifying under the terms of version 2 of the GPL. \r\n\r\n In short, it's not about version numbers, it's about freedom. The GPL doesn't care what incompatible licenses call themselves, because incompatible is incompatible is incompatible. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff] Edited by ubernostrum Aug. 12, 2005, 05:01:16 PM EDT Re: Step 4 is wrong. Ben, I've been supporting my claim, and providing reasoning for it. Over. And over. And over. But here we go, one more time. Step by step, with complete explanation: If a program is offered to me with a choice of different licenses, I must choose one of the offered licenses and abide by its terms. Therefore, if a program is offered to me with the choice of licensing under GPLv2 "or any later version", then if and when I take an action which would be covered by the GPL I must, per point (1), choose a specific version of the GPL from those available, and accept and abide by its terms. Let us assume that I receive a program with such a license offer, and wish to modify it and distribute the modified version. Let us further assume that, per point (2), I select version 2 of the GPL and accept its terms. Let us assume that as I engage in such distribution, I attempt to comply with the terms of version 2 of the GPL by offering to license the modified program to third parties under the terms of version 2 of the GPL or any later version. Let us assume that version 3 of the GPL is released, and that it imposes restrictions on use, distribution or modification which are not present in version 2 of the GPL. Let us assume that, once version 3 of the GPL is released, a third party receives a copy of the program from me and, noting the offer of "any later version", decides to accept this copy under the terms of version 3 of the GPL. In so doing, I have provided a modified copy of the program to a third party while imposing upon that third party further restrictions on that third party's exercise of rights granted under version 2 of the GPL. Per Section 6 of version 2 of the GPL, I am in violation of version 2 of the GPL. Conclusion: if version 3 of the GPL is incompatible with version 2 of the GPL, then I may not make the offer of "version 2 of the GPL, or any later version" to third parties to whom I provide copies and/or modifications of a program which I began distributing and/or modifying under the terms of version 2 of the GPL. In short, it's not about version numbers, it's about freedom. The GPL doesn't care what incompatible licenses call themselves, because incompatible is incompatible is incompatible. -- You cooin' with my bird? [link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff] Edited by ubernostrum Aug. 12, 2005, 05:02:28 PM EDT Expand All History \| Collapse All History
Post #219,086 by altmann 8/12/05 5:27:11 PM Reply	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
Post #219,088 by ben_tilly 8/12/05 5:34:54 PM Reply	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)
Post #219,094 by altmann 8/12/05 6:22:43 PM Reply	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
Post #219,102 by ben_tilly 8/12/05 6:55:15 PM Reply	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)
Post #219,403 by drewk 8/15/05 3:56:42 PM Reply	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]
Post #219,411 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 4:27:16 PM Reply	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)
Post #219,428 by drewk 8/15/05 5:42:03 PM Reply	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]
Post #219,430 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 5:48:36 PM Reply	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)
Post #219,358 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 12:29:22 PM Reply	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)
Post #219,665 by ubernostrum 8/16/05 11:33:04 PM 8/16/05 11:36:32 PM Reply	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] Edited by ubernostrum Aug. 16, 2005, 11:36:32 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #219,667 by altmann 8/17/05 12:11:52 AM Reply	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
Post #219,668 by ben_tilly 8/17/05 12:36:15 AM Reply	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)
Post #219,087 by ben_tilly 8/12/05 5:30:24 PM Reply	Step 7 in your logic is wrong Your obligation is to make it available under the GPL v2. You have no obligation to make other people accept it under the GPL v2. Merely to provide the option, which you have done. You are not in violation of section 6 because you did not impose further restrictions on the recipient. The recipient may choose to accept those restrictions of the recipient's free will, but you are not forcing them to do that. There is no imposition here, so you're fine. Furthermore section 9 of the GPL v2 explicitly says that it is OK to accept the GPL v3 if you have the option of the GPL v2 or later. This is (admittedly unnecessary) confirmation that the intent of the GPL v2 is to make it possible to license code GPL v2 or later and then later switch to licensing it GPL v3 or later. There is no problem. 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)
Post #219,105 by ubernostrum 8/12/05 7:50:19 PM Reply	Re: Step 7 in your logic is wrong Nope. The receipt of the program and choice of license is entirely voluntary on the third party's part, but even if they request it that way, providing a copy of the program under terms more restrictive than those of GPLv2 constitutes a violation of the license on my part. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,108 by ben_tilly 8/12/05 9:54:15 PM Reply	You are not doing that though! ...providing a copy of the program under terms more restrictive than those of GPLv2 constitutes a violation of the license on my part. Please quote the license in any reply! Be specific!!! Instead of saying "constitutes a violation", quote the actual license term that you believe has been violated. And explain why you feel that it has been violated. See my new .sig. (It was time for a change anyways...) Remember that in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=219084\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=219084] I walked through the license for exactly this scenario and found that every single license term was satisfied, so you might start by trying to find a mistake in that post. I'll also note that the GPL v2 doesn't contain the phrase "more restrictive". Your understanding may contain that phrase, but your understanding is not the license, and the question is whether your understanding is wrong. Furthermore I'll note as I have several times already that when you say "GPL v2 or later", your terms cannot be less generous than the GPL v2. Anyone who wants can choose to accept the GPL v2 and they get all rights granted by that license. Adding choices does not take existing choices away. Regards, Ben Moral of the story: the big picture is good, but details are important, especially when they're wrong. - [link\|http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=483131\|Tom Legrady]
Post #219,130 by ubernostrum 8/13/05 12:43:53 AM Reply	Re: You are not doing that though! Instead of saying "constitutes a violation", quote the actual license term that you believe has been violated. And explain why you feel that it has been violated. \r\n\r\n I'll also note that the GPL v2 doesn't contain the phrase "more restrictive". Your understanding may contain that phrase, but your understanding is not the license, and the question is whether your understanding is wrong. \r\n\r\n Well, setting aside that I quoted the appropriate clause in the last itemized listing of the scenario (did you read that?), let me just pull up my trusty copy of the GPL, version 2, Section 6: \r\n\r\n 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. \r\n\r\n Emphasis mine. \r\n\r\n Now, let's look at this in context: \r\n\r\n \r\n I get the program and modify and distribute it, accepting the terms of GPLv2 as I do so. \r\n I make the "or any later version" offer to people I give copies to, and one of them chooses to accept under GPLv3 which, we've stipulated, is more restrictive. \r\n Fuck me with a cucumber, Cletus! I've violated Section 6 of GPLv2! \r\n \r\n\r\n Whether my third parties want it or not, once I accept the terms of v2, I can't offer my derivative works under a more restrictive v3. Which means that, if v3 is more restrictive, I'm pinned to v2 for the moment. Maybe v4 will come along and save me, but at the very least I can't make the "any later version" offer. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,134 by ben_tilly 8/13/05 1:21:33 AM Reply	BUT YOU'RE NOT IMPOSING!!! As I said in the post you replied to, Adding choices does not take existing choices away. You leave people the option of applying GPL v2. Therefore you've imposed nothing on them. If you disagree, please explain how leaving them the option of GPL v2 imposes GPL v3 on the recipient. I've made variations of this point in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218860\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=218860], [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=219012\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=219012], [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=219087\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=219087], and [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=219108\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=219108] (the parent post that I quoted from). Also note that altmann made the same point in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=219086\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=219086]. Regards, 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)
Post #219,138 by ubernostrum 8/13/05 1:52:06 AM Reply	BUT FREEDOM MUST BE FREE! The word "impose" here is confusing you, I know, and that's OK because I'll explain it to you. What that means in the context of this here license is that when I make offers of license terms to third parties who want copies of this nifty program, I can't include restrictions that aren't in GPLv2. For more lucid elaborations of the topic I suggest you read the following handy bits of documentation which were written by actual live lawyers: \r\n\r\n \r\n [link\|http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible\|What does it mean to say that two licenses are "compatible"?] \r\n [link\|http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean\|What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL"?] \r\n \r\n\r\n And I especially would like to refer you to the following bit from the GPL FAQ which was, again, written at great expense by actual lawyers: \r\n\r\n Suppose a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version" and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version gives additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 2. When a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version", users will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the terms of GPL version 2--even after later versions of the GPL are available. \r\n\r\n I have added emphasis to the bit which certainly seems to me to imply that this very compatibilty issue is known to the FSF, and that it is indeed true that, in the event of an incompatible GPLv3, existing programs under v2 "or any later version" would end up pinned to one version or the other in the course of distribution through various third parties. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,140 by ben_tilly 8/13/05 2:23:48 AM Reply	Are you actively trying to be stupid? You seem to be very confused about the word "impose". I only impose something on you if I force it on you. If I offer you a new choice without removing the old, I am not imposing my new choice on you. If you remain confused, you may wish to consult a dictionary. Now I'm glad that you found the GPL FAQ. Hurrah for you. Next you might wish to master English. Let's start with the sentence which you think implies the kind of "pinning" behaviour that you're worried about. Said sentence is: But if the new GPL version has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 2. Note the phrase that I emphasized. I suggest that you figure out what it means. I further suggest that you read what that sentence says about why no restriction applies and compare it to what I've been saying all along. Really, this is beyond ridiculous. 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)
Post #219,147 by Another Scott 8/13/05 10:16:58 AM Reply	This is entertaining; but weirdly hypothetical, isn't it? I've only been skimming this discussion, but there seems to me to be a way to see a contradiction, but a way to see a resolution. Since you two seem to be talking past each other, I'll put in my $0.02. 1) The GPL says, as I understand it, that one cannot take a GPLed program and impose any more restrictions on it than already exist when the code is released by the original authors (unless all previous copyright holders agree). Or as [link\|http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html\|it says]: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. 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), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software. 2) If GPLed code is licensed under "GPL v2 or later version" then the GPL [link\|http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html\|says], briefly: 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. Thus, the question becomes: Can a hypothetical GPL version 3 that imposes new requirements on the release of source code for "web services" be compatible with a "GPL v2 or later" license? Given what we've discussed here earlier ("closing the web service loophole"), and given the quote from section 1 above, and my limited understanding, it would seem not. I think that's what Ubernostrum has been trying to say. Perhaps the problem is in the understanding of what rights are granted by the license. "GPL v2 or later" doesn't give the user to do anything they want with the code. The user has rights to the code under the license, and the license is subject to change. Thus, one can look at it as: As long as the code is released under "GPL v2 or later" then the FSF can change the subsequent licenses any way they want and it will be by definition GPL compatible. As long as the code has a GPL "or later" license, then a subsequent GPL license could say that all code released has to have the [link\|http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html\|DanceMonkeyBoy] MPEG included and it wouldn't affect the validity of the earlier "or later" license. Maybe that's what Ben is saying. I recognize that Stallman and Moglen have thought about these issues for years and are aware of the arguments about how many licenses can dance on the head of a pin. I'm sure they will craft a GPL v3 that is compatible with "GPL v2 or later" and clearly explain how. So it seems like the problem is going to be in code released under a specific version of the GPL. [link\|http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/11/gpl_fsf/\|The Reg]: On web services, Moglen said GPL required a "single legal phrase" that satisfied companies with different definitions of what it means to run software in the kinds of distributed environments that are the bedrock of web services. My $0.02. Carry on. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #219,163 by ben_tilly 8/13/05 1:31:02 PM Reply	Here's some clarifications on your take. I've only been skimming this discussion, but there seems to me to be a way to see a contradiction, but a way to see a resolution. Since you two seem to be talking past each other, I'll put in my $0.02. Seeing how other people see it is always good. 1) The GPL says, as I understand it, that one cannot take a GPLed program and impose any more restrictions on it than already exist when the code is released by the original authors (unless all previous copyright holders agree). Or as [link\|http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html\|it says]: It doesn't exactly say that, though it says something similar. We've been arguing about the implications of those terms. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. 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), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software. This is from the preamble. It documents the general intent of the GPL. It does not document the exact terms though. The intent only matters if there is a lack of clarity in the exact terms that needs to be resolved. Therefore what you really need to examine is the section from where it says, The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. to END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 2) If GPLed code is licensed under "GPL v2 or later version" then the GPL [link\|http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html\|says], briefly: 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. If you have followed the instructions of the GPL v2, this is indeed what it says. Thus, the question becomes: Can a hypothetical GPL version 3 that imposes new requirements on the release of source code for "web services" be compatible with a "GPL v2 or later" license? Given what we've discussed here earlier ("closing the web service loophole"), and given the quote from section 1 above, and my limited understanding, it would seem not. There is no question on this point, everyone is agreed. A useful GPL v3 is meant to address some issue with the GPL v2, and is likely to impose incompatible restrictions. Not just on web services, but there is also the suggestion of some terms that are meant to discourage the use of patents against free software. I think that's what Ubernostrum has been trying to say. Actually it isn't. What he's trying to say is that if the GPL v2 conflicts with the GPL v3, then anyone modifying a GPL v2 or later program following the restrictions of the GPL v2 must license their changes GPL v2 only. In other words, the GPL v2 forces one to go from GPL v2 or later to GPL v2 only. Perhaps the problem is in the understanding of what rights are granted by the license. "GPL v2 or later" doesn't give the user to do anything they want with the code. The user has rights to the code under the license, and the license is subject to change. Thus, one can look at it as: As long as the code is released under "GPL v2 or later" then the FSF can change the subsequent licenses any way they want and it will be by definition GPL compatible. As long as the code has a GPL "or later" license, then a subsequent GPL license could say that all code released has to have the [link\|http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html\|DanceMonkeyBoy] MPEG included and it wouldn't affect the validity of the earlier "or later" license. Maybe that's what Ben is saying. That is indeed what I'm saying. More specifically, I'm saying that because of that, the GPL v2 cannot force you to have to switch from GPL v2 or later to GPL v2 only. I recognize that Stallman and Moglen have thought about these issues for years and are aware of the arguments about how many licenses can dance on the head of a pin. I'm sure they will craft a GPL v3 that is compatible with "GPL v2 or later" and clearly explain how. I made that point as well. To deafening silence. So it seems like the problem is going to be in code released under a specific version of the GPL. We're in agreement on that. [link\|http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/11/gpl_fsf/\|The Reg]: On web services, Moglen said GPL required a "single legal phrase" that satisfied companies with different definitions of what it means to run software in the kinds of distributed environments that are the bedrock of web services. I am very interested in what this phrase might be... My $0.02. Carry on. :-) Thank you for the permission. :-) 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)
Post #219,193 by ubernostrum 8/13/05 6:51:32 PM 8/13/05 6:53:02 PM Reply	Your mother was a hamster In one-syllable words, since apparently you're a bit special: if I give you this thing, I can't say "oh, and here are some more things you can't do with it". And if you ask me to say that, it won't change things; I still can't say that. \r\n\r\n Why is this, you may ask? Well, let's consider a reductio ad absurdum: \r\n\r\n \r\n I receive a copy of a program called "Foo" which is licensed GPLv2 "or any later version". \r\n I decide that I want to distribute Foo, so I have to accept the terms of a version of the GPL. I pick version 2. \r\n When I distribute Foo, I offer to license it under GPLv2, or under the terms of a highly restrictive proprietary license I had my lawyer draw up. \r\n Someone chooses to receive a copy of Foo under the highly restrictive proprietary license. \r\n I'm informed by the original authors of Foo that I've violated the GPL. I tell them that I haven't, because I didn't "impose" the restrictions; my licensee chose them of his own free will. \r\n \r\n\r\n Happens all the time, right? --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff] Edited by ubernostrum Aug. 13, 2005, 06:53:02 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #219,226 by ben_tilly 8/13/05 11:53:46 PM Reply	Interesting You won't acknowledge that the GPL FAQ that you were trying to quote at me said the exact opposite of what you thought it said. Instead you start trying to pull new arguments out. Let's try your reductio ad absurdum out, shall we? In the scenario that you describe, you have two options. One is the one where you ask the person to decide in advance which license they are receiving it under. In that scenario you have trivially violated the GPL v2, you distributed copyrighted materials in a manner which was not approved of by the copyright owner. The GPL v2 is very clear on this, every copy that you distribute in accord with the GPL v2 must be distributed under the GPL v2 license. The other scenario is the one where you give the person the software and when they want to copy, modify, etc, they have a choice. In the other scenario they'll probably just laugh at your proprietary license, and use the GPL v2. But it gets worse for you. If your proprietary license purported to allow people the right to redistribute under some circumstances, and they chose to use that, they won't actually have permission from the copyright holders and will be liable. And the people you distributed to will be able to blame you and you'll be liable. In the second scenario where you're going wrong has nothing to do with the GPL, and everything to do with copyright law. A copyright owner owns the right to decide when copies will or will not be allowed. Third parties may not decide to take that right for themselves. Unless all copyright owners have agreed to a license, or agreed to terms which that license satisfies, copyright law says that you cannot copy modify or distribute. (Note that if all copyright owners have agreed to GPL v2 or later, then you're fine to accept it under the terms of the GPL v3. But all copyright owners must have agreed to that.) Regards, 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)
Post #219,238 by ubernostrum 8/14/05 1:32:24 AM Reply	Ben, you ignorant slut My whole point with the reductio exercise is to show that having a third party choose a more restrictive license doesn't change the terms of the GPL; more restrictive is more restrictive is more restrictive, and if I license a copy of a GPL program to a third party under terms more restrictive than those of the GPL version I agreed to upon commencing distribution, I am in violation of the GPL. Period. You keep coming tantalizingly close to recognizing this, but you always fail spectacularly in the end. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,284 by ben_tilly 8/14/05 11:33:09 PM Reply	Your intended point was not what you accomplished What you intended was a feat of brilliance that would cause me to change my world views, ignore everything that I said, ignore the GPL FAQ, and cause me to admit my utter ignorance. What you accomplished was demonstrating that you don't understand that copyright law prevents you from putting a copyright license on a work that the copyright owner has not agreed to. Which is about your usual par. Regards, 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)
Post #219,287 by ubernostrum 8/15/05 12:18:10 AM Reply	Riddle me this \r\n GPlv3 comes out and is more restrictive than GPLv2. \r\n I receive a program licensed GPLv2 "or any later version", and decide to distribute copies of it. \r\n In order to distribute copies, I choose to accept and abide by the terms of GPLv2. \r\n I offer to license copies GPLv2 "or any later version", and someone gets a copy from me which they then do something with which requires them to accept the terms of an applicable version of the GPL, and they choose GPLv3. \r\n \r\n\r\n In step 4 above I've licensed a GPL program to a third party with additional terms more restrictive than those of the version of the GPL I agreed to when I decided to distribute. I would like to know, clearly and succinctly, how that is anything other than a clear-cut violation of Section 6 of GPLv2. Because, you see, I've read the license, and I know for a fact that there's not a damn thing in there which lets me add restrictions to the license when I distribute the program. \r\n\r\n I know you've spouted nonsense previously about how "impose" means I have to force the choice, and that as long as I offer the less-restrictive v2 you don't think there's a problem. I'm of the opinion, however, that the "I didn't force it on him, your Honor" defense wouldn't hold up in court. Perhaps you should speak to an attorney regarding that, Ben. \r\n\r\n Also, I'd like you to meditate on the phrase "these terms and conditions" in Section 6 of GPLv2, and let me know exactly which terms and conditions are being referred to there. \r\n\r\n And yes, the reductio was deliberately absurd; that was sort of the point. I've tried to keep this discussion light-hearted with the Monty Python taunts and exaggerated reductio and such, but if you want to keep up the petty ad-hominem shit I'll be happy to have a serious dick-measuring contest for our respective knowledge of intellectual property law. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,301 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 1:29:00 AM Reply	The riddle is trivial Section 6 says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. This means that the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to operate under the GPL v2. You are not allowed to interfere with this license grant. You are not responsible for making sure that others operate within the license grant. Therefore if you distribute to someone else under GPL v2 or later, you have met the requirements of section 6. The work is available under the GPL v2, as required. You've done nothing to impose any restrictions on people's ability to take full advantage of the GPL v2. You've met the requirements. The option of GPL v2 must be available, and is. It is not your responsibility if people take advantage of other choices. Now for a common sense question. Wouldn't [link\|http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater\|Why should programs say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"?] be pretty ridiculous if an issue like the one you suggest exists actually existed? The entire point of saying GPL v2 or later is so that changes (including tightening the license) can be made later. If doing so caused a problem, that would be a pretty big issue. Wouldn't you expect someone to have come up with it already? Now both of us have suggested that the other talk to an attorney about the GPL v2. Which begs the question of which of us actually has talked with attorneys about the GPL v2? I know that I have. Enough of them at enough length that I don't want to bother them with a question that I know the answer to already, and which the ones that I know know that I should know the answer to as well. (Besides would you believe me if I said, "OK, a lawyer confirmed my opinion"?) However if you want to ask you can always subscribe to the appropriate list (license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org would be appropriate...) and ask there. Please be sure to report back with their answers. :-) 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)
Post #219,325 by ubernostrum 8/15/05 4:05:40 AM Reply	Ah, Ben, you didn't meditate. Again, I ask you: when Section 6 says "these terms and conditions", to which terms and conditions is it referring? I don't honestly see how it could be referring to any terms and conditions besides those of version 2 of the GPL. Now re-think your answer in light of this information, and have your lawyers friends do the same. \r\n\r\n And if you could point me to a publicly archived mailing list where this has been asked, and answered by a licensed attorney who practices in the field of copyright law (even better if they routinely work with GPL issues), then I just might be more inclined to believe you. \r\n\r\n And as for the "don't you think they'd have come up with it already" argument, I do wonder whether anyone ever sat down and thought out what would happen if a future version of the GPL wasn't compatible with previous versions; as I read it (and, dear Ben, I used to literally do IP research for a living, as that was what got me my grant money in school, so I'd like to think I can read a license and get the salient points), the GPL is rather optimistically written with the assumption that future versions will remain compatible. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,362 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 12:47:40 PM Reply	I don't know of anywhere that this has been asked Which only goes to say that I don't know of anyone who has chosen to misunderstand things in the way that you have chosen to misunderstand them. But I pointed you at a list where you can ask, and you are likely to be answered by multiple lawyers who are deeply involved in free software. (And therefore should be expected to understand the GPL v2 pretty well.) To answer your specific question, the phrase these terms and conditions in the GPL v2 do indeed refer to the GPL v2. Section 6 therefore says that if you follow the GPL v2, then anyone who receives the Program from you automatically receives a GPL v2 license for the Program, and you may not restrict their free use of the permissions that the GPL v2 provides them. Which, if your modified version is offered under the GPL v2, you haven't. This says nothing about what other licenses may or may not be available to the recipient under what terms. Just that the GPL v2 must be available, and you must not impose any restrictions on their freedom to use the permissions granted by the GPL v2. As for whether anyone has thought about this topic, when the GPL v2 was drawn up, certainly people thought about the issue of how to migrate from version to version. After all license migration was at the time an interesting topic, considering that they were trying to figure out how to migrate from the original GPL to the GPL v2. That's why the GPL v2 has instructions for people to follow which were meant to smooth the way to the GPL v3 when that came around. 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)
Post #219,401 by drewk 8/15/05 3:52:31 PM Reply	Future versions don't have to remain compatible ... the GPL is rather optimistically written with the assumption that future versions will remain compatible. No it's not. If you assume every future version will remain compatible with the current version, you have no reason to specify "or any later version". If, on the other hand, you assume that future versions will be incompatible, then you can offer in your license terms the option to release under any future version of the GPL. And anyone redistributing it can choose which of those -- v2 or any later version -- to attach. Hell, if you wanted to be perverse, you could take a "GPL v2 or any later" program, modify it, and attach a license specifying "GPL v7 only". Now that would effectively take your fork proprietary. Cool, huh? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #219,196 by ubernostrum 8/13/05 7:04:13 PM Reply	And your father smelt of elderberries Note the phrase that I emphasized. I suggest that you figure out what it means. I further suggest that you read what that sentence says about why no restriction applies and compare it to what I've been saying all along. \r\n\r\n Ben, you underlined all the words except the one that matters! It says it will not restrict USE. You're trying to say it will not restrict RELICENSING WITH FURTHER RESTRICTIONS. These phrases I've put in bold, dear Ben, are not quite equivalent. \r\n\r\n And note how that bit neatly explains that the reason why use will not be restricted is the availability under GPLv2. Which implies that receiving the program under GPLv3 would (drumroll please) "impose further restrictions". What can't you do under GPLv2? Oh, yeah, you can't impose further restrictions. \r\n\r\n I'm very sorry that you have the reading-comprehension skills of a blind quadruplegic chihuahua, but I'll be happy to keep bludgeoning you with facts until you understand them. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,227 by ben_tilly 8/14/05 12:08:36 AM Reply	And you have the brains of a chihuahua There, we can both be silly. Note the phrase that I emphasized. I suggest that you figure out what it means. I further suggest that you read what that sentence says about why no restriction applies and compare it to what I've been saying all along. Ben, you underlined all the words except the one that matters! It says it will not restrict USE. You're trying to say it will not restrict RELICENSING WITH FURTHER RESTRICTIONS. These phrases I've put in bold, dear Ben, are not quite equivalent. No, I am not trying to say that it will not limit relicensing. I am saying that licensing your modifications GPL v2 or later will not conflict with the GPL v2. Let's walk through the scenario again, shall we? Alice produces a work licensed GPL v2 or later. Bob modifies it and redistributes it to Jane licensed GPL v2 or later. Jane modifies it and redistributes it licensed GPL v3 or greater. Is this allowed? I believe that we both agree that Alice is allowed to put any copyright she wants on her code. The FAQ item that you quoted agrees with me, and makes it clear that Bob is allowed, under the GPL v2, to make modifications and redistribute them as GPL v2 or later if Alice's code was already GPL v2 or later. (We're agreed that he can't put an arbitrary license on Alice's code.) Copyright law, common sense, and section 9 of the GPL v2 all agree that Jane can choose to receive that code under the GPL v3. Assuming that the GPL v3 allows it, Jane can license her changes GPL v3 or later without problem. Note that we've been arguing about whether Bob can redistribute a modified work under the GPL v2 or later license that he received it under. Bob is not trying to change license terms. Jane is, and she's operating under the (still hypothetical) GPL v3. So relicensing does not enter into the question of whether Bob can do that. And note how that bit neatly explains that the reason why use will not be restricted is the availability under GPLv2. Which implies that receiving the program under GPLv3 would (drumroll please) "impose further restrictions". What can't you do under GPLv2? Oh, yeah, you can't impose further restrictions. You're missing something basic about copyright law. Copyright law restricts distributing copies. It does not restrict receiving copies. When you receive a copy you have no need to accept any copyright license. It is only when you seek to do something prohibited by copyright law that you need to accept a copyright license. Therefore talking about the copyright license that you recieve a copyrighted piece of code under makes no sense. You don't need a license for that, it is not a restricted activity. This point is made fairly explicit in section 5 of the GPL v2. I'm very sorry that you have the reading-comprehension skills of a blind quadruplegic chihuahua, but I'll be happy to keep bludgeoning you with facts until you understand them. You may continue demonstrating your incomprehension if you like. I'm bored, I'm just waiting to see whether you ever notice how completely and utterly wrong you are. And if you do, whether you will have the guts to acknowledge it. Regards, 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)
Post #219,239 by ubernostrum 8/14/05 1:37:51 AM Reply	See, here's the thing You seem to be assuming that my position is something like "if I receive a GPL program licensed v2 or later, and modify/distribute it as v2 or later, then I am in violation of the license." Your latest makes this abundantly clear, so I'll remind you that my position is this: if I receive a GPL program licensed v2 or later, and if I modify/distribute it as v2 or later, and if v3 comes out and is more restrictive than v2, and if someone chooses to get a copy from me and takes the option of v3, then I am in violation of the license. This stems from the simple, verifiable, undeniable fact that there is no language in the GPL, anywhere or of any sort, which permits me to license a program I obtained under the GPL under more restrictive terms than those of the GPL version I obtained it under. And, in fact, the whole and entire point of the GPL is to make it legally impossible for me to do that. \r\n\r\n So please, demonstrate that you aren't a blind chihuahua and get that through your smug skull. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,304 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 1:41:06 AM Reply	That is a misunderstanding I hadn't quite anticipated So you believe that Alice writes code that is GPL v2 or later and gives it to Bob, Bob modifies it and releases the modified version GPL v2 or later to Jane, then Jane modifies and later redistributes under GPL v3 to John, that Bob is in violation of GPL v2 at the point that Jane chooses GPL v3? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is? Suppose that Bob gives Jane the code, and Jane sits on it for a year and a day. Then you'd have us believe that for a year and a day that Bob's distribution was OK until Jane decided to choose the GPL v3? Um, sorry. It doesn't work like that. Either Bob's distribution to Jane is OK, or it isn't OK. At the point of distribution. Which happens before Jane has any reason to accept any copyright license. (Which might be never. That is, after all, how many times that I've needed to accept the copyright license on Linux.) And, as I've pointed out many times, as long as the option of GPL v2 is available, you've satisfied the requirements of the GPL v2. The other options that you may or may not provide are irrelevant, the GPL v2 is satisfied if you provide the GPL v2 as an option. (Copyright law may not be satisfied if you try to provide options that you're not allowed to provide, but that is outside of the GPL.) 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)
Post #219,198 by ubernostrum 8/13/05 7:09:21 PM 8/13/05 7:12:57 PM Reply	Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time You seem to be very confused about the word "impose". I only impose something on you if I force it on you. If I offer you a new choice without removing the old, I am not imposing my new choice on you. \r\n\r\n If you remain confused, you may wish to consult a dictionary. \r\n\r\n Ben, I suggest you write to those bastards at the dictionary, because they've got it all wrong. Here's what my Oxford dictionary says for "impose": \r\n\r\n v. trans. to lay on or set on; to put, place or deposit. \r\n\r\n Ain't nothing in there about force, Ben. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff] Edited by ubernostrum Aug. 13, 2005, 07:12:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #219,230 by ben_tilly 8/14/05 12:20:07 AM Reply	What do the other definitions say? The free online version of the Oxford has 2 definitions. See [link\|http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=impose&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname\|http://www.askoxford...rder=score%2Cname]. The one that applies here is clearly force to be accepted, undertaken, or complied with. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has 4 definitions. See [link\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=impose&x=0&y=0\|http://www.m-w.com/c...va=impose&x=0&y=0]. The first is the one that applies, and it comes in 2 forms. a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies -- C. H. Plimpton>. Dictionary.com has 5 definitions. See [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impose\|http://dictionary.re...m/search?q=impose]. The first 2 could apply, and are essentially the same as Merriam-Webster's definitions. Note that part of mastering English is not just being able to recite definitions out of the dictionary, it is having a good enough understanding of how language is used to know which definition is meant. Regards, 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)
Post #219,285 by drewk 8/15/05 12:06:51 AM Reply	What does this mean? Whether my third parties want it or not, once I accept the terms of v2, I can't offer my derivative works under a more restrictive v3. Umm, you don't accept anything until you distribute. You keep talking about what terms you and others are "accepting" the code under. You aren't a party to any license agreement until you distribute. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]

Welcome to IWETHEY!