[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    Re: Implications of the GPL
From:       Austin Ziegler <fantome () vnet ! net>
Date:       1998-04-05 17:54:42
[Download RAW message or body]

First, thank you very much for responding.

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>     I think that there may need to be a point modification to the GNU
>     GPL that specifically indicates that other publically (open)
>     licensed software that is included in a larger work (mostly
>     composed of GNU GPL code) retains its original license even though
>     the larger work is distributed AS A WHOLE under the GNU GPL.
> 
> This is true already, because it is a consequence of the way copyright
> law works.  There is also text in the GPL to state this explicitly:
> 
>     These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
>     identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>     Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
>     works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not
>     apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate
>     works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a
>     whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
>     the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
>     for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each
>     and every part regardless of who wrote it.
> 
> So if someone finds non-copylefted text whose license is compatible
> with the GPL, and puts it into a GPL-covered program, then the
> combination as a whole is covered by the GPL; but if you extract the
> non-copylefted text out of the combination, you can use it in whatever
> ways its authors gave permission for.
> 
> If this text is mixed in with other code, no one would know how to
> extract it.  But if it is a separate file, as it usually is,
> extracting it is easy.
> 
> If you make a significant change in that file, you can choose whether
> to release the changed file under the GPL alone, or release it under
> its original broader terms.  You announce your choice by what you add
> to the distribution terms statement in the modified file.

I accept what you have said as true, but I must still take some issue
with the concept of "compatible with the GPL" as I understand you are
saying it. If I am misunderstanding, *please* correct me.

It is my understanding that you have asked for special "permissions" for
the GNU GPL codebase in the NPL/MPL because the NPL/MPL is not viewed as
"GNU GPL-compatible". Just what *is* GNU GPL-compatible? If other
opensource licenses which meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines are
not GPL-compatible, why not? Should the GNU GPL be modified to recognize
implicit compatibility with other licenses which meet the Debian FSG
(IMO, yes, as the Debian FSG are very reasonable)? I think that it's a
bit much to ask that everyone modify their licenses to be GPL-compatible
if they meet the Debian FSG already.

That is my opinion, but I have heard the opinion voiced by others both
before and after I have suggested my change to have the GNU GPL respect
other licenses which meet the Debian FSG.

> This is a consequence of copyright law, so it would be true even if
> the GPL said nothing about it.  Version 1 of the GPL did not say
> anything about the issue, so I added the text in version 2 to help
> explain matters.  But perhaps it isn't clear enough that the text
> applies to that case.  Maybe I will be able to make it clearer in GPL
> version 3, when that comes out (but that is not likely to be very
> soon).  On the other hand, maybe explaining the situation in postings
> like this one is better than making the GPL longer.

If this is something that needs clarification, you might consider an
"Annotated" GPL like Mozilla.org has provided with the annotated NPL/MPL
provided.

I make no bones that I find the infectious nature of the GNU GPL to be a
negative thing, particularly when it infects other opensource projects
that could otherwise be combined with it. But make it so that it only
infects proprietary products and I will very quickly change my tune to
be more positive. I think lots of other folks will, too.

-austin
-- 
austin ziegler * fantomeATvnetDOTnet   * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* azieglerATvcelaDOTcom * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me           * Love: n. the condition in which 
----------------- * the welfare of another becomes essential to your own
             our lives are ova before they begin

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]