Re: License question

From: Misshielle Wong
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 19:18:38 EST

Hello

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:47:22 -0800, David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Hi

Hello.

> It doesn't "ask" for anything. It states a license requirement. And
> yes, it does restrict rights, it removes your right to remove that
> notice. Any license clause that prohibits you from making particular
> modifications to the source code is a restriction. The only issue is
> whether it's a "further restriction" for purposes of clause 6 of the
> GPL. As I read the GPL, a restriction is a "further restriction" if it
> is imposed in addition to those stated in the GPL.

Blah blah blah. You can't remove copyright notices in GPL'ed software
either, so it is no additional restriction.

I'm not sure what section of the GPL you're referring to. 2c does not impose such a restriction.

>> Summarizing this
>> license, it ends up like this: "Copyright bla bla bla. Keep 'em goddamn
>> copyrights and disclaimer or else you have no rights to copy, modify,
>> sublicense, redistribute, sublicense bla bla bla. Software provided 'as
>> is'. Clear?"
>
> Yep, that's what it says.
>
>> GPL is ok with that.
>
> No, GPL is "you may modify however you please". It imposes only a
> specific set of restrictions and specifically prohibits the imposition
> of additional restrictions. These are *exactly* the type of additional
> restrictions the GPL was carefully worded to prohibit!
>

Blah blah blah. Read the GPL section 1 and 2.

=====
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients
of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

This does not prohibit you from removing anything. Please show me the section that says you can't remove a copyright notice. And notice that these restrictions are only on copying and distributing. The license we are talking about imposes such restrictions upon use.


No, you misunderstand. It says you have to include the appropriate copyright notice in order to distribute it. "Appropriate copyright notice" means "Copyright from ALL copyright holders", because that's the "appropriate" thing to do. Failure to include all copyright notices is plagiarism and you can be sued for that.


You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
you also meet all of these conditions:
...
=====

See? Must keep the appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
warranty
in each copy.

It doesn't say you have to keep anything. Please, show me the section that says so. It only says you must attach a copyright somewhere, not that you can't remove existing copyright notices. It also only requires you to keep intact notices that refer to "this license", that is, the GPL.


Blah blah blah. It clearly states that you have to include the appropriate copyright notices. As I stated before, "appropriate" means "ALL of them" in this case.


I'm sorry, the license is not GPL compatible. The GPL was carefully constructed to make it impossible for people to put things in the source code that others could not remove (other than the GPL itself).


Blah blah blah. Go do your homework and stop arguing about something you don't understand.

Start by visiting the following URL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

The license in question is an hybrid between "The modified BSD license" and "The X11 license". No additions were made, just inserted something from one license into the other. All insertions are therefore GPL compatible.


=====
The modified BSD license. http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
=====


=====
The X11 license. http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software.
=====

DS






--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/