Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Montag, 21. September 2009 18:49:18 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <address@hidden>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes
>
> >The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which
> >both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have.
> >
> >On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code
> > under GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any
> > additional restrictions.
>
> Oops - haven't you got that backwards? If they put it under v2 ONLY,
> aren't they saying they don't agree to any additional FREEDOMS

Both are right: They don't agree to additional
FREEDOMS in the sense that the "user" is not free to choose GPLv2 or GPLv3, 
but they also don't agree to additional
 RESTRICTIONS: Using GPLv3 would add an additional restriction to the use 
(DRM, atent claues) and this is prohibited by GPLv2only. 
All users are be free to use GPLv2 applications in tivo-like machines and that 
freedom is whatI'm talking about.


> >Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add
> > additional restrictions.
>
> such as allowing it to be distributed under v3?

No byt linking to a LGPLv3 library, this does not require the application to 
be GPLv3. However, the LGPLv3 says that you can only link to it if you agree 
to the DRM- and patent clauses. That's the additional restrictions that LGPLv3 
has compared to GPLv2.
Thus linking to a LGPLv3 library takes aways rights (e.g. to legally prevent 
access by using DRM or to sue for patent infringement) that the GPLv2 
provided. 


> (Yes I know I'm being a pedant! But that's why I think demanding
> contributors use v2 *only* is a bad idea. 

So do I! I contribute to lilypond to support lilypond, not to be picky about 
copyrights. For example, I signed over all my KDE contributions to the KDE 
e.V. and additionally crossed out the paragraph that that contract becomes 
void under certain circumstances...

Unfortunately, there is nothing like that for Lilypond.

I did these contributions to support lilypond (and sometimes also because I 
needed them), so they should really help lilypond and not cause legal 
problems.


> You're saying they can't grant
> *more* *freedom* (if that's what they want).)

The developers can of course grant more freedom to their own code. It's just 
that the default is GPLv2only and nobody cares about asking or explicitly 
giving more rights (which would result in a mess anyway, because you would 
need to track who changed which lines, etc.). 

Cheers,
Reinhold
- -- 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKt9DWTqjEwhXvPN0RAlziAKCKDGKWRkYO9Bk8R7AkeIsLNEaU8gCgsVib
Tzx7l+nikWxvJtPWHtn8y9c=
=QWCl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----