[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Freedom to take freedom

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Freedom to take freedom
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:09:56 +0000
User-agent: Heirloom mailx 12.2 01/07/07

Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 17:08 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > As I understand it, that is a licence which says, essentially:-
> > - you may distribute this only if you do not add restrictions that
> > are not in GPLv2 (GPLv2 s6); and
> > - you may distribute this only if you add some restriction which
> > is not in GPLv2 (addition s1b - the description as an "exception" is
> > clearly incorrect IMO). [...]
> I don't think it can be read that way. The GPLv2 only talks about
> 'further restrictions' - it doesn't say that the license you get from
> the licensor is the GPL and only the GPL; it's not, it's the license
> that the author put on the work (which is GPL+bits).

In particular, it talks about "further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein".  "herein" is in the GPLv2.
The licence can be GPL+bits, but only if bits aren't restricting
something granted in the GPLv2.

At least, that's as far as I understand it and I don't believe it can
be read another way.  If there's a better-qualified opinion that
"herein" can mean GPL+bits rather than just GPL, please let me know
where and I'll reconsider and pass on the news.

> It's also not the
> licensee ('You') adding the further restriction - and unless you modify
> the thing, you don't have the right to do that in any event because you
> have no copyright standing.
> The added clauses by the licensor are not severable from the rest of the
> license - although "GPL + bits" is a fine way to describe the license,
> it's a single set of terms and conditions. It's not "distribute via GPL,
> but then tack on these extra bits every time", it's "distribute via GPL
> +bits". 

Agreed, but no-one else can satisfy the first GPL+bits in order to get
the permission.

Probably the licensor meant either to use a modified GPL, or to use a
different addition, but that's not what's been done.  It's a
depressingly common mistake and I've made similar myself in the past.

Anyway, the debian-legal thread says it will be changed, so rejoice?

MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]