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

[David Kastrup]

Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> On 15/02/2023 15:36, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Code contributed to GNU LilyPond will*always*  be under the GPL.  You
>> can't change the license afterwards.
>
> Sorry. This is legal bullshit. If *I* contribute a file to lilypond,
> and *I* stick a *BSD* licence on it, the BSD licence does *NOT* give
> *YOU* the right to change the licence to GPL.

You are not understanding that a license is associated with a
transaction, not with a file text.

> Even the GPL itself makes this extremely clear. It explicitly states
> that you receive your licence to GPL code - not from the person who
> gave you the code - but from the copyright holder themself.

Uh, no?  From the GPL:

      10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

      Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
    receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
    propagate that work, subject to this License.  You are not responsible
    for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

I repeat: "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient
automatically receives a license from the original licensors".  There is
no word about the license being in some manner connected to the file
contents.

> If the copyright holder NEVER GRANTED a GPL licence, how the hell are
> you supposed to receive a GPL licence?

"From the original licensors", not "From the copyright holders".

Section 7f:

    f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
    material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
    it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
    any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
    those licensors and authors.

This makes rather explicit that "licensors" and "authors" is not
synonymous.

> You are correct that I can't change the licence afterwards. But if *I*
> *NEVER* licenced that code under GPL, then that code can NEVER be GPL.

You still don't understand.  Code can never *be* GPL anyway.  It can be
_licensed_ under the GPL.  How do you imagine dual licensing could even
work if code magically "was" GPL or any other license?

> So what you're saying is, I can't take someone else's BSD-licenced
> code, MAYBE add stuff to it, and add the result to lilypond?

Now am I saying anything like that?

> Absolutely NO FLOSS licence I can name allows a licensee to change the
> licence. (One or two explicitly allow conversion to GPL, but I can't
> name them.)

There is no "conversion" because code _is_ not GPL or BSD or stuff like
that but is _licensed_ under such licences.  Relicensing is not
"conversion".  You are confusing the licenses with the attributions.
 _Those_ are what BSD-like licenses do not allow changing.

> The GPL works, NOT because it changes the licence on everything else,
> but because it guarantees that by complying with the GPL, you are also
> complying with any other licence that it may be mixed up with.

I really recommend that you read up on the material you talk about with
such confidence.  The GPL FAQ is a good start.
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>

> First rule of copyright licencing. You cannot change the licence of
> someone else's code unless the original licence gave you permission.

Your "first rule of copyright licencing" already confuses what a license
is.  It is not governing code but its conveyance.

> As I said, almost no FLOSS licence gives you that authority.

Now you are confusing license and attribition again.

> So if the copyright owner put BSD, MIT, Apache, whatever code into
> lilypond, then that code REMAINS BSD, MIT, Apache or whatever.

Licenses cover conveyance, not code.  You could not otherwise
dual-license code.

> The lilypond BINARY is *effectively* GPL.

> I use the word *effectively* because it is under a mix of licences,
> but the only licence a distributor can use is the GPL. Because the GPL
> guarantees that, by complying with the GPL, you are complying with all
> the other relevant licences.
>
> So the effect of the GPL is that we can safely behave as if lilypond
> is completely GPL, while the legal reality is completely different.

"legal reality".  Sigh.  And of course you know much better about the
legal reality than the law professors consulted by the FSF.

-- 
David Kastrup