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 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]
New 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)
New Riddle me this
    \r\n
  1. GPlv3 comes out and is more restrictive than GPLv2.
  2. \r\n
  3. I receive a program licensed GPLv2 "or any later version", and decide to distribute copies of it.
  4. \r\n
  5. In order to distribute copies, I choose to accept and abide by the terms of GPLv2.
  6. \r\n
  7. 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.
  8. \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]
New 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)
New 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]
New 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)
New 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]
     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)

It's all fun and games until someone loses a lung.
203 ms