Re: [gentoo-dev] XFree86 w/ new license

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 03:50:08PM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote:
> <grumble> I promised myself I'd stay the heck out of this one...but I just
> can't let Jon's comment slide unrebutted, and so I'll somment on Drake's
> message while I'm here.
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:33:03PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:50:34PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > > The problem is that the XFree license and the GPL are now
> > > incompatible. For smooth progression of overall Linux development, one
> > > of these licenses must now change. This does not necessarily imply that
> > > the one which changed most recently needs to change back. So much focus
> > > has been applied to the "offending" portion of the new XFree license;
> > > perhaps we should lend the same critical eye to our beloved GPL. One
> > > possible analogy for the situation is that the XFree license demonstrated
> > > a bug in the GPL.
>
> I've been arguing for over a decade that the GPL is buggy. Its deliberate
> incompatibility with other open source licenses is one symptom of that.
>

You mean "deliberate incompatibility with licenses imposing additional 
restrictions."

According to the FSF it's perfectly compatible with the following 
licenses:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses

I license my code under the GPL because I absolutely agree with 
everything the GPL states. If I didn't, I would use a different 
license. It's that simple: if you don't want your code to be strictly 
free software, don't use a license that makes your code strictly free 
software. You can spin it any way you want, but the copyright owner 
picks the license, and they pick the license they _want to use_. If 
people are picking licenses they haven't read or don't understand, that 
is not a bug in the license but rather in the copyright owner.

> > I think it's perfectly reasonable for a license to insist on people not
> > placing further restrictions on the code. This is what prevents people
> > from making free software nonfree.
>
> NO!!!
>
> You CANNOT make existing freely available software non-freely-available.
> Period. It cannot be done. Copyright laws will not allow it. Regardless of
> what anyone does with a piece of code, no matter what license itt's under,
> that code cannot be made other than freely available. Non-viral licenses
> allow people to make THEIR OWN WORK other than freely available, but this is
> exactly as it should be.

I have an app 'foo' under the GPL. I link it to 'bar' under a 
proprietary license. Because they're now linked, foo is a derived work 
of bar. If I then redistribute those in a binary set, I have just 
violated the license on foo.

Yes, that piece of GPL-licensed code cannot be made nonfree. When 
they're linked, they can. That's why additional restrictions are a 
problem. If we distribute a GRP set with GPL apps linked to libs with 
additional restrictions, we are violating the license terms set down by 
any of the GPL apps that're linked. Something under the BSD license 
*can* have additional restrictions, including proprietary restrictions.

If you don't like the GPL, don't write your code under it; don't tell 
those of us who license their code under the GPL *because we like it* 
that we're somehow wrong. If you don't like a core component being under 
a license you don't like, rewrite the component from scratch under a 
different license. That's what the freedesktop people are doing with X.

You are absolutely right; copyright law will not allow you to violate 
copyright licenses. The GPL is a license that forbids additional 
restrictions, so it's illegal to try to impose additional restrictions. 
The BSD license is a license that _doesn't_ forbid additional 
restrictions, so it's _not_ illegal to impose additional restrictions. 
Did you misunderstand what I was saying? I was saying that what keeps 
free software from being redistributed under nonfree terms is the "no 
additional restrictions" clause (read section 6 of the GPL; the only 
additional restrictions allowed are specified by section 8, which is 
very limited in scope). The BSD license, on the other hand, does not set 
down very strict terms and permits source/binary redistribution with 
additional restrictions.

As for "THEIR OWN WORK," as you put it, the copyright holder can 
relicense GPL-licensed code under another license any time they please. 
I can release an application I write under the GPL, again under the BSD 
license, and again under a proprietary license. Lots of people use dual 
license approaches. Nobody can *retroactively* change a license, of 
course, but that's an entirely different subject. I think you're a 
little confused about this. A license does not place restrictions on the 
actual copyright holder; the actual copyright holder can do whatever 
they please by virtue of being the copyright holder. They can grant 
other people permission to do whatever they please by distributing it to 
that person under a totally different license.

Does that clarify things for you? Let me know if it doesn't; I'm willing 
to elaborate further.

>
> > The BSD license approach is not at all intended to keep free software
> > free;
>
> Wrong. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have the BSDs today. Sun would
> have made them proprietary a long time ago.

You misunderstand what I mean. See above; you cannot _retroactively_ 
change a license on anything, but the BSD license permits other people 
to take your code and use it in a proprietary project. In other words, 
that code can be made nonfree. This is not the purpose of the GPL; your 
entire issue seems to be that the GPL is a license intended to 
perpetuate freedom, whereas the BSD license doesn't have the same 
ideals involved.

>
> > it's intended to let people create proprietary software using free
> > software code.
>
> Thus guaranteeing the maximum freedom for everyone. This is the true spirit
> of free software, and why I think the FSF has it all wrong - and is being
> intellectually dishonest in calling their position "free".

You mean "this guarantees the freedom to deny freedom." I do not want my 
code used in such a way, which is why I do not use the BSD license for 
anything nontrivial. If someone *does* want their code used in such a 
way, wouldn't they use a BSD-style license? Isn't it fair to let the 
copyright holder make that decision? Isn't that an improvement on Jay 
Maynard making that decision for them?

If you want your code used in proprietary products, use a license that 
permits it to be used in proprietary products. If you (like me) do not 
want that, do not use a license that permits it to be used in 
proprietary products. If you do not want your code used in free software 
products, use a license that does not permit it to be used in free 
software products. And so on.

What you seem to actually be suggesting is that everyone should use 
licenses that do things they don't want them to do because that's what 
*you* believe.

>
> > What you're actually suggesting is reforming the way the entire free
> > software community feels about freedom and licensing.
>
> Speak for yourself, pilgrim.
>
> > Have you really thought this through?
>
> More than the frothing Stallmanites have.
>

Please tell me I didn't just waste all that time explaining copyright 
and licensing basics for a troll.

> > Basically you're stating that it should be acceptable to place
> > proprietary restrictions on what was at one point free software.
>
> No, he's not, because you cannot change the restrictions under which a piece
> of code is available. You can place additional restrictions on your code,
> but the original code is now and forever available under the same terms as
> it was when the proprietary fork was taken.
>

Please study up on derived works and linking so you can understand what 
I'm saying.

> > If people wanted their code to be treated that way, they wouldn't license
> > it under the GPL.
>
> Some folks don't have any choice.

Really? Somebody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to write 
code under the GPL?

> Further, there are LOTS of folks out there that hold the same wrong belief
> you do, and choose the GPL in light of that error.

Sorry, none of my beliefs are wrong. Unfortunately, your understanding 
of copyright law and licensing seems to be very much lacking, which 
makes it very difficult to hold an intelligent discussing about real 
world licensing issues.

>
> > Nobody's forcing anybody to put their code under one
> > license or another.
>
> It is the explicit aim of the GPL to have all software, everywhere, under
> any conditions, licensed under their anticommercial terms.

That's just silly.

Perhaps you didn't mean the GPL; if you meant "the explicit aim of the 
FSF" you may be closer to the mark. However, they are not forcing anyone 
to do anything. They are not forcing you to use the GPL on your code, 
they are not forcing you to link to GPL-licensed code, they are not 
forcing you to use GPL-licensed applications. What they *are* doing is 
attempting to explain to people why they feel that free software is 
better for society. They can't _force_ you to do anything.

>
> > I would not use a license that allows additional restrictions for most of
> > what I do; I only license relatively trivial things under BSD-style
> > licenses.
>
> That is your prerogative. However, if you base that on the erroneous belief
> that someone could take that software and make it no longer freely
> available, I suggest you reexamine your position.

I suggest you reexamine the issue of derived works in copyright law and 
then reexamine what I said, particularly the parts about licenses that 
allow additional restrictions versus those that don't and how that 
affects the perpetuation of freedom in software.

By not allowing additional restrictions on things I write, I am 
preventing other people from taking my work, adding their work, and 
never letting other people benefit from the opportunity to take both my 
work and their work together, add their own work, and release that back. 
Under a BSD-style license, they can take my work, add their work, and 
release it under a proprietary license. If the copyright holder feels 
that's how they want their code to be used, that's the licensing scheme 
they'll use.
Under a GPL-style license, they can take my work, add their work, and 
have to release their work too so that somebody else can take my work 
and their work, add their own work, and so on. That's how I want my code 
to be treated, so that's the licensing scheme I use.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list