GPLv2 or GPLv2+

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts,
   the first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the
   second being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and
   containing only the legally enforceable terms.  But this isn't
   going to happen either.

You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public License that
only contains the legal parts that just happens to have the exact same
terms as the GNU GPL.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >   I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
   >   circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep
   >   all of those things in perfect order.
   >
   > Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business, and doesn't
   > require any effort at all.  Infact, it is less effort than not
   > collecting them, since if you do not, you end up with things like
   > this.

   Alfred, this is not a simple matter.  Since written forms must be
   transferred and signed, for people employed this often involves
   seeking approval and that can take months.

If you work for a company then you should seek approval for each
project you contribute to, since you might or might not be the
copyright holder of the code you write.  Most people forget to even
add a copyright line to files that they contribute a large amount of
code to, making it next to impossible when figuring out who the
copyright holders are.

So indeed, collecting copyright assignments and disclaimers is a
simple matter, it is far simpler than doing it after the fact.  


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Thomas Lord]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Eg, the GPL says: "keep intact the notices that refer to this
> license".  Now, most FSF-derived programs have a notice like
>
>     XEmacs is free software.
>     You may copy, modify, and redistribute it under the GPLv2.
>     You can get a copy of the GPLv2 from the FSF in Cambridge MA.
>
> If I remove the "XEmacs is free software" portion, have I mutilated
> the notice?  How about updating the FSF's address?  How does the
> preamble help me to answer those questions?
>
>  

Are you asking for legal advice?   I don't have any.  But
here is how I see the logic of the applicable law:

The preamble helps a lot.   You might have to change
the literal form of the notice for any number of reasons
(e.g., simply to re-format the file).   Some of these changes
are permitted, others are obviously not.   The judgement
call is: which is which?

The phrase"is free software" is a term of art that constitutes prominent
notice of what kind of public license to expect to find.   It's
clear intent is to make it as obvious as possible to users that they
have the very freedoms the license describes in the pre-amble.
You would have a difficult time arguing that that part could be
removed or changed too much.   You would have an easier time
arguing that it could be changed to similarly familiar term:
"The XEmacs license protects software freedoms," or
something.

As to the FSF address:  What is its function in the notice?
Of what, is the user being notified?  Is the notice there to
inform the user of the one-time street address of the FSF?
Or is it there to give users enough information that they
can, taking advantage of assistance offered by the Free Software
Foundation, obtain a copy of the license?    The preamble
makes it clear that its the second kind of notice and, for
that reason, you're clearly permitted to (accurately) update the
address.


-t



_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Debarshi Ray]

> For now you should treat Arch (tla) as GPL v2 only.

But then docs-tla/index.tst says version 2 or later. What should I make of that?

Cheers,
Debarshi
--
GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7
Key server: pgp.mit.edu


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Thomas Lord writes:

 > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > > Eg, the GPL says: "keep intact the notices that refer to this
 > > license".  Now, most FSF-derived programs have a notice like
 > >
 > >     XEmacs is free software.
 > >     You may copy, modify, and redistribute it under the GPLv2.
 > >     You can get a copy of the GPLv2 from the FSF in Cambridge MA.
 > >
 > > If I remove the "XEmacs is free software" portion, have I mutilated
 > > the notice?  How about updating the FSF's address?  How does the
 > > preamble help me to answer those questions?
 > >
 > >  
 > Are you asking for legal advice?

No, just more precise BS.  That is the level of discussion here. :-)

 > But here is how I see the logic of the applicable law:

 > The preamble helps a lot.   You might have to change
 > the literal form of the notice for any number of reasons
 > (e.g., simply to re-format the file).   Some of these changes
 > are permitted, others are obviously not.   The judgement
 > call is: which is which?

 > The phrase "is free software" is a term of art that constitutes
 > prominent notice of what kind of public license to expect to find.
 > It's clear intent is to make it as obvious as possible to users
 > that they have the very freedoms the license describes in the
 > pre-amble.  You would have a difficult time arguing that that part
 > could be removed or changed too much.

No, all I have to do is say "this sentence doesn't mention the GPL, and
is clearly superseded by the content of the GPL."  The fact that it's
useful information has nothing to do with mentioning the GPL.  Nor
does the preamble have anything to do with this that I can see.

Now, it's *possible* that the term "notice" is a term of art, that
would by legal custom include "nearby" text (eg, the whole
paragraph).  But again, that is not an argument that is strengthened
by the presence of the preamble.

 > You would have an easier time arguing that it could be changed to
 > similarly familiar term: "The XEmacs license protects software
 > freedoms," or something.

How about the fact that my project changes "Emacs" -> "XEmacs" every
time we sync?  But again, the rest of the GPL, without the preamble,
clearly implies that that kind of change is acceptable.  On the other
hand, discussion of "free software" is no help, because some free
software has explicitly prohibited similar changes (old BSD
advertising clause; GFDL cover texts).

 > As to the FSF address:  What is its function in the notice?
 > Of what, is the user being notified?  Is the notice there to
 > inform the user of the one-time street address of the FSF?
 > Or is it there to give users enough information that they
 > can, taking advantage of assistance offered by the Free Software
 > Foundation, obtain a copy of the license?    The preamble
 > makes it clear that its the second kind of notice and, for
 > that reason, you're clearly permitted to (accurately) update the
 > address.

So does the wording of the permission notice: "you can get a copy from
the FSF at ...".  Pretty clearly updating the "..." is implicitly
*expected*,  not merely permitted.

So yes, you could figure those things out from the preamble, but it
don't take a rocket scientist to do it without, and I don't see that
the preamble helps at all in these cases; it's *less* precise than
the GPL Terms and Conditions.

I just don't think the "philosophical bullshit" helps establish the
kind of intent relevant here.  That is, "what did they mean by this
word which is not a term of art?"  Mostly it confuses the issue, if
anything.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Alfred M. Szmidt writes:

 > You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public License that
 > only contains the legal parts that just happens to have the exact same
 > terms as the GNU GPL.

That is explicitly not permitted.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

    > You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public License
    > that only contains the legal parts that just happens to have the
    > exact same terms as the GNU GPL.

   That is explicitly not permitted.

I never wrote `modify the GNU GPL', I wrote `the exact same terms'.
Two entierly different things, the first is not permitted, the seocnd
is.  Creating a new copyleft license is perfectly OK.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Alfred M. Szmidt writes:

 >     > You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public License
 >     > that only contains the legal parts that just happens to have the
 >     > exact same terms as the GNU GPL.
 >
 >    That is explicitly not permitted.
 >
 > I never wrote `modify the GNU GPL', I wrote `the exact same terms'.

That's right, you didn't write "modify".  However, under the law what
you describe would be considered modification.

Is it possible that you do not understand that?



_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

    >     > You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public
    >     > License that only contains the legal parts that just
    >     > happens to have the exact same terms as the GNU GPL.
    >
    >    That is explicitly not permitted.
    >
    > I never wrote `modify the GNU GPL', I wrote `the exact same
    > terms'.

   That's right, you didn't write "modify".  However, under the law
   what you describe would be considered modification.

No, it would not, ideas cannot be copyrighted.  And if that was the
case, all copyleft licenses would be illegal, since by your incorrect
interpretation they would be deriviates.  Which they are not.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
 >     >     > You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public
 >     >     > License that only contains the legal parts that just
 >     >     > happens to have the exact same terms as the GNU GPL.
 >     >
 >     >    That is explicitly not permitted.
 >     >
 >     > I never wrote `modify the GNU GPL', I wrote `the exact same
 >     > terms'.
 >
 >    That's right, you didn't write "modify".  However, under the law
 >    what you describe would be considered modification.
 >
 > No, it would not, ideas cannot be copyrighted.

OK.  Show us how to do it.  For bonus points, get it certified as a
Free Software license by the FSF.



_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

    >     >     > You can create the Stephen J. Turnbull General Public
    >     >     > License that only contains the legal parts that just
    >     >     > happens to have the exact same terms as the GNU GPL.
    >     >
    >     >    That is explicitly not permitted.
    >     >
    >     > I never wrote `modify the GNU GPL', I wrote `the exact same
    >     > terms'.
    >
    >    That's right, you didn't write "modify".  However, under the law
    >    what you describe would be considered modification.
    >
    > No, it would not, ideas cannot be copyrighted.

   OK.  Show us how to do it.  For bonus points, get it certified as a
   Free Software license by the FSF.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

What did I win?


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Alfred M. Szmidt writes:

 > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

There's no Stephen J. Turnbull General Public License there.

 > What did I win?

Troll-of-the-Month Award.  I should have known better than to play.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

    > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

   There's no Stephen J. Turnbull General Public License there.

The whole point was that you could make one, not that there was one.

    > What did I win?

    Troll-of-the-Month Award.  I should have known better than to play.

As usual, when you no longer have any rational arguments you resort to
ad hominem attacks.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/