Re: RFC: stop doing "grand replace" updates to copyright years

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le mercredi 15 février 2023 à 23:08 +0000, Wol a écrit :
> On 15/02/2023 17:05, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > Wols Lists <[antlists@youngman.org.uk](mailto:antlists@youngman.org.uk)> 
> > writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > An individual source file is an individual work.
> > 
> > 
> > Apparently you don't understand what licensing a work means.  A license
> > is not something pervading files like copyright does.  A license is a
> > particular permission.  The GPL is a license for using a complete works,
> > not individual files.
> 
> 
> Please define "work". I understand perfectly what "licensing a work"  
> means. You are arguing that lilypond is a work. I am arguing that a file  
> (completely my own work) that I contribute to lilypond, is ALSO a work.
> 
> We are both correct.
> 
> And if I choose to licence my work under the BSD, that is my  
> prerogative. If you choose to reject my work based on my choice of  
> licence that is your prerogative. But if you accept my work, THAT DOES  
> NOT ALTER THE LICENCE ON MY WORK.
> 
> 
> > If you do not accept the license, your rights to use a work fall back to
> > the default rights granted by copyright laws of your country, and the
> > person who has standing to sue you for breach of copyright is the
> > copyright holder of particular code.
> > 
> > 
> > > What happens if I decide to add a file under a BSD licence? The
> > > copyright ON THAT FILE is not GNU,
> > 
> > 
> > You are confusing copyright and license.  The copyright holder
> > apparently has decided to license the file to you under the BSD license.
> > That includes your right to release that file as a work licensed under
> > the GPL.
> 
> 
> Please choose your choice of English carefully. The BSD includes the  
> right for you to release my BSD work as PART OF your work licenced under  
> the GPL.
> 
> But as you have written it, you have just said that you can release my  
> BSD work as GPL. The BSD does NOT give you that right.
> 
> 
> > What happens if someone decides to break your license terms by using
> > that file on its own under the original license?
> 
> 
> ?????????????????? THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> How can you break the licence terms by using a work according to the  
> terms it was licenced under?
> 
> If my file has a BSD licence on it, and someone uses it according to the  
> terms of the BSD licence, it does not matter HOW they got hold of it,  
> whether it was included as part of a larger GPL work, a larger  
> proprietary work, a larger anything work. They are using my work under  
> the licence I released it as. How can that be breaking the licence?
> 
> Bear in mind, if they got it via a GPL work, the GPL itself says they  
> got a BSD licence, not a GPL licence.
> 
> And if, as you imply, that file was not my work, then they cannot breach  
> my licence terms because I HAVE NO RIGHT TO SET ANY SUCH TERMS. THAT IS  
> *F*O*R*B*I*D*DE*N*.
> 
> 
> > As a consequence, files obtained via a BSD license will be _effectively_
> > available under the BSD license since pressing the GPL licensing is not
> > likely to fly.
> 
> 
> It is not only unlikely to fly, legally it has as much ability to fly as  
> a dead duck!
> 
> The GPL itself says that the licence to that code has been obtained from  
> the original copyright holder: so then (a) if that original licence is  
> BSD then ALL recipients received a BSD licence not a GPL licence, and  
> (b) seeing as the licence came from the copyright holder if I am a  
> third-party to the transaction I have absolutely no rights whatsoever.
> 
> The GPL cannot grant a GPL licence to code where the copyright holder  
> did not grant a GPL licence.
> 
> 
> > Legally, however, there is a distinction between authorship/copyright of
> > the material and licensing of a particular copy.
> > 
> > 
> > > it is not GPL, let's assume no-one has modified it. If that file is
> > > 100% my BSD-licenced copyright, you changing the copyright notice
> > > (even if it's just the date!) is fraudulent misrepresentation.
> > 
> > 
> > No, it isn't, not least of all because text bytes at the start of the
> > file are of no legal consequence as long as they are not declared to be
> > part of some interaction.
> 
> 
> They are of legal consequence if they mislead some third party into  
> believing something that is not true.
> 
> 
> > I can write at the start of a file "shoot yourself" and that is not
> > legally binding.
> 
> 
> And if you change the year, you are changing the copyright notice. That  
> is legally significant.
> 
> 
> > But changing the BSD licensing notice is against the terms of the BSD
> > license.  It's one of the few things where BSD without advertising
> > clause actually differs significantly from Public Domain.
> > 
> > 
> > > You yourself said "The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_
> > > _whole_", that "whole", legally BEING THE BINARY. Otherwise the GPL
> > > truly would be viral, as detractors like to claim, seizing ownership
> > > of works that their creators explicitly did NOT place under the GPL.
> > 
> > 
> > Now you are really going off the rails.  I recommend that you read the
> > respective FAQs about the GPL.
> 
> 
> The law trumps FAQs. And if the GPL explicitly says the GPL does not  
> apply, what relevance does a GPL FAQ have?
> 
> 
> > 
> > > (And lastly, when you said that "GNU only requires copyright
> > > assignment for EMACS" and something else, I'm very sorry but you
> > > clearly did not read what I wrote. You used present tense, I used past
> > > tense. If GNU used to require assignment, then a policy of updating
> > > the notices every year makes sense.
> > 
> > 
> > No GNU program requiring a copyright assignment for working on it has
> > ceased doing so as far as I know, and no GNU program not requiring a
> > copyright assignment for working on it has started requiring one (for
> > the record: to integrate AUCTeX into Emacs core as a GNU project, it was
> > decided that copyright assignments would be needed in order not to have
> > a non-copyright-assigned GNU package for the copyright-assigned GNU
> > Emacs.  That made it necessary to hunt up all relevant old AUCTeX
> > contributors well into the 20th century and get assignments from them, a
> > real nuisance: so this was a case where becoming a GNU project
> > necessitated assignments after the fact).
> > 
> > 
> > > But if they DON'T require copyright assignment, and they DON'T own the
> > > copyright, then changing the copyright notice smacks of fraud.
> > 
> > 
> > The FSF does not change copyright notices of projects it is not in
> > charge of and I already explained why this statement is both wrong and
> > unnecessarily inflammatory.
> 
> 
> But if you are updating the year, aren't you updating the copyright  
> notice? So, if a project does not require copyright assignment, aren't  
> you contradicting yourself? You are changing copyright notices on a  
> project that you don't own copyright for.
> 
> (Note that when AT&T did that to the Unix source, they effectively  
> deleted their own copyrights!!!)
> 
> 
> > 
> > > Simple as. BUT DOES ANYBODY REALLY CARE? Only the armchair lawyers, I
> > > guess :-)
> > 
> > 
> > I am not sure who you try to denigrate here and for what purpose.
> >
> 
> If anyone, myself. (I don't see that it has much real significance.  
> Other than by believing things that aren't true, people can cause  
> themselves (and others) problems.)
> 
> 
> The BIG problem here, is that because projects are EFFECTIVELY licenced  
> under the GPL, people believe the falsehood that said projects are  
> LEGALLY licenced under the GPL.
> 
> The magic of the GPL is that - while pretty much every GPL project is a  
> collective work made of multiple smaller works under a big variety of  
> licences - it guarantees the collective work can be safely distributed  
> SO LONG AS you comply with the GPL.
> 
> It does not, CAN not change the licences of the smaller individual works  
> that make up the greater whole. And it actually EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any  
> attempt to argue that.
> 
> Which is why, imho, you cannot reasonably update *other* *peoples*  
> copyright notice. And you most certainly cannot claim the GPL lets you  
> do so, because the GPL itself explicitly says it does not apply.



Please, very please, everyone.

*Stop* discussing this topic on this list. Move the discussion off-list if you 
want to continue it. (Often this can also reduce heat in the discussion.)

This list is about developing LilyPond, not about copyright law.

Thank you.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part