Your mother was a hamster

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 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. Why is this, you may ask? Well, let's consider a reductio ad absurdum: I receive a copy of a program called "Foo" which is licensed GPLv2 "or any later version". 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. When I distribute Foo, I offer to license it under GPLv2, or under the terms if a highly restrictive proprietary license I had my lawyer draw up. Someone chooses to receive a copy of Foo under the highly restrictive proprietary license. 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. Happens all the time, right? -- You cooin' with my bird? [link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff] Collapse 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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!