License Committee Report for July 2007

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Michael Poole wrote:

> forward than I was when I read Timothy McIntyre's email.  The changes
> in GPLv3 seem deep enough that over-analogy with GPLv2 could obscure
> important changes, which is the major reason I did not and do not feel
> comfortable enumerating the changes.

You need to find someone who is capable of doing so, as you will not be
able to champion the licence through the approvals process unless you
understand it inside out.  (There is also a preference that the person
submitting be able to change it in response to feedback, but I think
these licences are immutable.)


--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

[John Cowan]

Wilson, Andrew scripsit:

> Chris, as you know, the actual compatibility matrix for LGPL is
> really much more complicated.  LPGLv3 is compatible with GPLv3,
> with LGPLv2-or-later and GPLv2-or-later, BSD, and can even be linked
> to proprietary code, but it is not compatible with LGPLv2-only or
> GPLv2-only (unless it's GPLv2 with the runtime or classpath exceptions).
>
> This is (IMO) a really hokey situation, where LGPLv3 is compatible
> with non-free SW but not with free SW under GPLv2/LGPLv2.

It's not as bad as you think.  There are two kinds of derivative works
made from LGPLed code: in LGPLv2-speak, they are "works based on the
library" and "works that use the library".  The corresponding LGPLv3 terms
are "works based on the Program" and "Combined Works", respectively.

The compatibility matrix you speak of refers only to the first kind:  you
cannot add a LGPLv3-only module to an LGPLv2-only library.  However, you
are entirely free to make use of an LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 or LGPLv2-or-later
library from any kind of program, whether under an FSF license, another
FLOSS license, or a proprietary license, provided you obey the basic
constraints (allowing the user to replace the library with new versions,
basically).

--
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@...
Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash,
The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!"
It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall,
But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.
        --The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi all,

Just changing the title so we can accurately track the discussion.  
As far as I'm concerned, the (L)GPLv3 has been properly submitted, so  
it would be wonderful for the community to provide its collective  
wisdom as to whether it meets the OSD (rather than getting stuck in  
meta-discussions).

-- Ernie P.
(speaking for myself, not the OSI Board, but I don't think they'd  
object :-)

On Jul 31, 2007, at 2:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:

>> Chris, as you know, the actual compatibility matrix for LGPL is
>> really much more complicated.  LPGLv3 is compatible with GPLv3,
>> with LGPLv2-or-later and GPLv2-or-later, BSD, and can even be linked
>> to proprietary code, but it is not compatible with LGPLv2-only or
>> GPLv2-only (unless it's GPLv2 with the runtime or classpath  
>> exceptions).
>>
>> This is (IMO) a really hokey situation, where LGPLv3 is compatible
>> with non-free SW but not with free SW under GPLv2/LGPLv2.
>
> It's not as bad as you think.  There are two kinds of derivative works
> made from LGPLed code: in LGPLv2-speak, they are "works based on the
> library" and "works that use the library".  The corresponding  
> LGPLv3 terms
> are "works based on the Program" and "Combined Works", respectively.
>
> The compatibility matrix you speak of refers only to the first  
> kind:  you
> cannot add a LGPLv3-only module to an LGPLv2-only library.  
> However, you
> are entirely free to make use of an LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 or LGPLv2-or-
> later
> library from any kind of program, whether under an FSF license,  
> another
> FLOSS license, or a proprietary license, provided you obey the basic
> constraints (allowing the user to replace the library with new  
> versions,
> basically).

[Wilson, Andrew-2]

John Cowan wrote:

> It's not as bad as you think.  There are two kinds of derivative works
> made from LGPLed code: in LGPLv2-speak, they are "works based on the
> library" and "works that use the library".  The corresponding LGPLv3
terms
> are "works based on the Program" and "Combined Works", respectively.
>
> The compatibility matrix you speak of refers only to the first kind:
you
> cannot add a LGPLv3-only module to an LGPLv2-only library.  However,
you
> are entirely free to make use of an LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 or
LGPLv2-or-later
> library from any kind of program, whether under an FSF license,
another
> FLOSS license, or a proprietary license, provided you obey the basic
> constraints (allowing the user to replace the library with new
versions,
> basically).

Beg to differ, it is as bad as I think (or, that is to say, worse than
you think).  Look specifically at the case of a GPLv2-only program
linking to an LGPLv3 library where the "system library" exception does
not apply.  GPLv2 says the entire Combined Work
falls under its copyleft.  This is trivially easy with an LGPLv2
library, since the library can be automatically relicensed as GPLv2.
On the other hand, the LGPLv3 library is in fact GPLv3 with extra
permissions which may be stripped away to leave bare GPLv3 ... which
wants the entire Combined Work to be licensed under *its* copyleft,
which
FSF says is incompatible with GPLv2's.  Conflict of licenses ensues.

Now look at the case of linking a proprietary program with the same
LGPLv3 library.  Since one of those additional permissions is to bound
the scope of v3 copyleft from spreading to the entire Combined Work,
no conflict of licenses.

I'll take those ibuprofen tablets now....

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center

[John Cowan]

Wilson, Andrew scripsit:

> Look specifically at the case of a GPLv2-only program
> linking to an LGPLv3 library where the "system library" exception does
> not apply.  GPLv2 says the entire Combined Work
> falls under its copyleft.  This is trivially easy with an LGPLv2
> library, since the library can be automatically relicensed as GPLv2.

That's true, but that's not *why*.  An LGPLv2 library may, under section
6 of the LGPLv2, be combined or linked with a work that uses it under any
terms of your choice (provided modification of the library and reverse
engineering are permitted), including the GPLv2 (which is required by
the license on the work using the library).

> On the other hand, the LGPLv3 library is in fact GPLv3 with extra
> permissions which may be stripped away to leave bare GPLv3 ... which
> wants the entire Combined Work to be licensed under *its* copyleft,
> which FSF says is incompatible with GPLv2's.  Conflict of licenses
> ensues.

You *may* strip the LGPLv3-specific permissions, but nothing requires
you to do so.  Under clause 4 of the LGPLv3, you may instead distribute
the Combined Work under terms of your choice (with the same proviso).
These terms will be the GPLv2 once again.  No license conflict.

> Now look at the case of linking a proprietary program with the same
> LGPLv3 library.  Since one of those additional permissions is to bound
> the scope of v3 copyleft from spreading to the entire Combined Work,
> no conflict of licenses.

I agree.

--
There is no real going back.  Though I          John Cowan
may come to the Shire, it will not seem         cowan@...
the same; for I shall not be the same.          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth,
and a long burden.  Where shall I find rest?           --Frodo

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 7/31/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson@...> wrote:
[...]
> you think).  Look specifically at the case of a GPLv2-only program
> linking to an LGPLv3 library where the "system library" exception does
> not apply.  GPLv2 says the entire Combined Work
> falls under its copyleft.

Speaking of which, how does that (LGPLv3 aside) relates to OSD#9:
"License Must Not Restrict Other Software... Rationale: Distributors
of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about
their own software"?

Well,

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

says that

"Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked
with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work,
not any software with which they are merely distributed"?

but I just grasp what is meant by phrase "single work" and distinction
regarding an aggregation of GPLvX work with other works (e.g.
libraries) with which it is merely distributed (?"Combined Work"?).

Any help?  TIA.

regards,
alexander.

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 8/1/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@...> wrote:

> On 7/31/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson@...> wrote:
> [...]
> > you think).  Look specifically at the case of a GPLv2-only program
> > linking to an LGPLv3 library where the "system library" exception does
> > not apply.  GPLv2 says the entire Combined Work
> > falls under its copyleft.
>
> Speaking of which, how does that (LGPLv3 aside) relates to OSD#9:
> "License Must Not Restrict Other Software... Rationale: Distributors
> of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about
> their own software"?
>
> Well,
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>
> says that
>
> "Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked
> with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work,
> not any software with which they are merely distributed"?
>
> but I just grasp what is meant by phrase "single work" and distinction

can't grasp, I meant.

> regarding an aggregation of GPLvX work with other works (e.g.
> libraries) with which it is merely distributed (?"Combined Work"?).
>
> Any help?  TIA.

regards,
alexander.

[Wilson, Andrew-2]

From: John Cowan wrote:

> You *may* strip the LGPLv3-specific permissions, but nothing requires
> you to do so.  Under clause 4 of the LGPLv3, you may instead
distribute
> the Combined Work under terms of your choice (with the same proviso).
> These terms will be the GPLv2 once again.  No license conflict.

How -- exactly -- do you propose to relicense the entire
Combined Work under GPLv2 if all you have is an LGPLv3
license for the library in question?  You are not allowed
to relicense any of the LGPLv3-covered portions, except to
remove any section 7 additional permissions.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center

[John Cowan]

Wilson, Andrew scripsit:

> How -- exactly -- do you propose to relicense the entire
> Combined Work under GPLv2 if all you have is an LGPLv3
> license for the library in question?  You are not allowed
> to relicense any of the LGPLv3-covered portions, except to
> remove any section 7 additional permissions.

No relicensing is required.  When I create a combined work with some
components under the GPLv2 license and others under the 3-clause BSD
license, I am compelled to license the combined work as a whole under
the GPLv2.  I am not thereby *relicensing* the BSD components, as indeed
I have no right to do.  Rather, I am incorporating them into the combined
work, as their license permits and the GPLv2 does not forbid.

The LGPLv3-GPLv2 case is on all fours.  The LGPLv3 components are not
relicensed: the Combined Work is licensed under the terms of my choice
under section 6 (though in fact I have no choice, since the GPLv2
components dictate that the Combined Work be GPLv2).

--
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                cowan@...
And is made up of                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
   Contradiction.  --William Blake

[Wilson, Andrew-2]

 
John Cowan wrote:

>> How -- exactly -- do you propose to relicense the entire
>> Combined Work under GPLv2 if all you have is an LGPLv3
>> license for the library in question?  You are not allowed
>> to relicense any of the LGPLv3-covered portions, except to
>> remove any section 7 additional permissions.
>
> No relicensing is required.  When I create a combined work with some
> components under the GPLv2 license and others under the 3-clause BSD
> license, I am compelled to license the combined work as a whole under
> the GPLv2.  I am not thereby *relicensing* the BSD components, as

indeed
> I have no right to do.  Rather, I am incorporating them into the
combined
> work, as their license permits and the GPLv2 does not forbid.

Ah, now we're getting to the nub of the problem.  This is wrong.
In this scenario, you are in fact relicensing the BSD components under
GPLv2,
as you have rights to do providing you leave the original BSD copyright
notices and disclaimer of warranty intact.  When you link GPLv2
with LGPLv2 components, you are implicitly exercising the
conversion to GPLv2 option that is inherent in LGPLv2.  Absent
said conversion you would be in violation of the GPLv2 copyleft.
Ditto for the case where you link GPLv3 code with LGPLv3 code.
You are implicitly stripping the extra section 7 permissions
to yield bare GPLv3.

You have no such option under the terms of the license
to relicense LGPLv3-only code to GPLv2.
Once you understand this, you see the compatibility problem.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 7/31/07, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> Wilson, Andrew scripsit:
>
> > Look specifically at the case of a GPLv2-only program
> > linking to an LGPLv3 library where the "system library" exception does
> > not apply.  GPLv2 says the entire Combined Work
> > falls under its copyleft.  This is trivially easy with an LGPLv2
> > library, since the library can be automatically relicensed as GPLv2.
>
> That's true, but that's not *why*.

Uhmm. Google search yields this:

http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html

------
Some common questions and answers in regards to licensing and patents

This FAQ is based on a a series of questions we asked the FSF in
regards to understanding how the GPL works and how patents affects the
GPL. These questions and answers are verified by the FSF lawyers,
which makes them the final interpretation on how the GPL and LGPL
interact with patents in our opinion. We paid the FSF to have them
provide us these answers. So these answers are verified correct by
people like FSF lawyer and law professor Eben Moglen.

Question: Can someone for example distribute

1. GStreamer, the LGPL library
2. Totem, a GPL playback application
3. The binary-only Sorenson decoder

together in one distribution/operating system ? If not, what needs to
be changed to make this possible ?

Answer: This would be a problem, because the GStreamer and Totem
licenses would forbid it. In order to link GStreamer to Totem, you
need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert GStreamer to GPL. ...
------

regards,
alexander.

[John Cowan]

Wilson, Andrew scripsit:

> Ah, now we're getting to the nub of the problem.

Indeed.

> This is wrong.

I disagree.

> In this scenario, you are in fact relicensing the BSD components under
> GPLv2, as you have rights to do providing you leave the original BSD
> copyright notices and disclaimer of warranty intact.

How on earth can I change the license (which is what "relicense" means)
on a copy of a copyrighted work that belongs to someone else?  A license
is an act of sovereign power by the copyright owner that grants rights
to the licensees.  Absent a grant of the power to relicense (a word,
as well as a right, not present in the BSD license), I cannot possibly
do such a thing.

This is the core of my argument.  There is, and in most cases, can be no
relicensing of components, yet "make use of the library" compatibility
exists between the LGPL (v2 or v3) and essentially all other licenses.
(As I said to start with, "modified version of the library" compatibility
does not.)

> When you link GPLv2 with LGPLv2 components, you are implicitly
> exercising the conversion to GPLv2 option that is inherent in LGPLv2.
> Absent said conversion you would be in violation of the GPLv2 copyleft.
> Ditto for the case where you link GPLv3 code with LGPLv3 code.
> You are implicitly stripping the extra section 7 permissions to yield
> bare GPLv3.

Well, you could do that, yes.  But you could also avail yourself of the
LGPL-granted rights in section 6 (v2) or 4 (v3), just as when you link
an LGPLed library with an MPLed work to form a Larger Work (MPL jargon)
or a Combined Work (LGPLv3 jargon).  Under the combined terms of the MPL
and the LGPL, provided you keep the components in separate files, you
can license the resulting work under any license at all (usual proviso):
a proprietary one, GPLv2, or anything you want.

> You have no such option under the terms of the license to relicense
> LGPLv3-only code to GPLv2.

I agree with *that*, I just see no necessity to do so.  Your arguments
are not addressing the powers granted by section 6 (or 4).

> Once you understand this, you see the compatibility problem.

I *understand* your argument fine.  I just think it's wrong, is all.

--
John Cowan    cowan@...    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Nobody expects the RESTifarian Inquisition!  Our chief weapon is
surprise ... surprise and tedium  ... tedium and surprise ....
Our two weapons are tedium and surprise ... and ruthless disregard
for unpleasant facts....  Our three weapons are tedium, surprise, and
ruthless disregard ... and an almost fanatical devotion to Roy Fielding....

[John Cowan]

Alexander Terekhov scripsit:

> Uhmm. Google search yields this:
>
> http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html

I believe the claim in that FAQ that:

        In order to link GStreamer [an LGPLv2 library] to Totem [a GPL
        application], you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert
        GStreamer to GPL.

is simply wrong, whether it comes from the FSF or not.

--
But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master.  Some
reward you have earned at least.  Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains.
I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful
service.  --Gandalf             John Cowan <cowan@...>

[John Cowan]

Alexander Terekhov scripsit:

> Speaking of which, how does that (LGPLv3 aside) relates to OSD#9:
> "License Must Not Restrict Other Software... Rationale: Distributors
> of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about
> their own software"?

Software that your program links to does not count as "other software".

--
John Cowan  cowan@...  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
        --Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 8/1/07, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
>
> > Speaking of which, how does that (LGPLv3 aside) relates to OSD#9:
> > "License Must Not Restrict Other Software... Rationale: Distributors
> > of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about
> > their own software"?
>
> Software that your program links to does not count as "other software".

Yet you believe the claim in
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html that:

       In order to link GStreamer [an LGPLv2 library] to Totem [a GPL
       application], you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert
       GStreamer to GPL.

is simply wrong?

I can't follow your reasoning.

regards,
alexander.

John Cowan wrote:

> Wilson, Andrew scripsit:
>
>> How -- exactly -- do you propose to relicense the entire
>> Combined Work under GPLv2 if all you have is an LGPLv3
>> license for the library in question?  You are not allowed
>> to relicense any of the LGPLv3-covered portions, except to
>> remove any section 7 additional permissions.
>
> No relicensing is required.  When I create a combined work with some
> components under the GPLv2 license and others under the 3-clause BSD
> license, I am compelled to license the combined work as a whole under
> the GPLv2.  I am not thereby *relicensing* the BSD components, as indeed
> I have no right to do.  Rather, I am incorporating them into the combined
> work, as their license permits and the GPLv2 does not forbid.

I think this is not a trivial issue.

The wording of GPLv2 is (my emphasis):

"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.*"

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html


Brendan

[Wilson, Andrew-2]

John Cowan wrote:

>> In this scenario, you are in fact relicensing the BSD components
under
>> GPLv2, as you have rights to do providing you leave the original BSD
>> copyright notices and disclaimer of warranty intact.
>
> How on earth can I change the license (which is what "relicense"
means)
> on a copy of a copyrighted work that belongs to someone else?  A
license
> is an act of sovereign power by the copyright owner that grants rights
> to the licensees.  Absent a grant of the power to relicense (a word,
> as well as a right, not present in the BSD license), I cannot possibly
> do such a thing.

Perhaps a non-GPL example will help clarify.  As is well known,
Mac OS X contains great gobs of BSD-licensed code which Apple
re-releases under their own proprietary license.  They are permitted
to do this since BSD gives unlimited rights to redistribute and modify,
with the sole proviso that the original copyrights and disclaimers
remain.
With BSD, anything that is not forbidden is allowed.  You may apply your

own additional terms and conditions (e.g. relicense).  You don't
have to change the original grant from the BSD copyright holder to do
so.

Just as Apple may add their EULA on top of BSD, you or I or anyone else
may add GPL on top of BSD-licensed code and distribute the result.

The phrase you sometimes hear "GPL-compatible license" is a
misnomer.  What is really meant is "a license which allows you to
relicense as GPL."  BSD is one such license, LGPL is another.  Because
of
the aggressive nature of the GPL copyleft, the only type of non-GPL
code which can be integrated into a Combined Work with GPL code must
be under a "license which allows you to relicense as GPL."  The point of
my
original comment was that, for better or for worse, LGPLv3 has no
built-in mechanism to convert to GPLv2 and thus is incompatible
with a non-trivial set of real-world programs. e.g. GPLv2-only code.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center

[Brian Behlendorf-2]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> Yet you believe the claim in
> http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html that:
>
>       In order to link GStreamer [an LGPLv2 library] to Totem [a GPL
>       application], you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert
>       GStreamer to GPL.
>
> is simply wrong?
>
> I can't follow your reasoning.

I can.  It's wrong, because you can link an LGPLv2 library against other
code licensed under any other license, so long as some specific conditions
are met (the LGPL library can be replaced with an updated version, etc).
The LGPL code did not need to be "converted", because the GPL effects
those LGPL conditions.  The GPL may cover the work as a whole, but the
LGPLv2 still covers the library.

  Brian

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 8/1/07, Brian Behlendorf <brian@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Yet you believe the claim in
> > http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html that:
> >
> >       In order to link GStreamer [an LGPLv2 library] to Totem [a GPL
> >       application], you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert
> >       GStreamer to GPL.
> >
> > is simply wrong?
> >
> > I can't follow your reasoning.
>
> I can.  It's wrong, because you can link an LGPLv2 library against other
> code licensed under any other license, so long as some specific conditions
> are met (the LGPL library can be replaced with an updated version, etc).
> The LGPL code did not need to be "converted", because the GPL effects
> those LGPL conditions.

As far as I'm concerned, the LGPLv2 could have conditioned its
"additional permissions" on renaming One Microsoft Way into One FSF
Way. The proposition preceding my "yet" that you snipped was that
(quoting John Cowan)

<quote>

Software that your program links to does not count as "other software".

</quote>

regarding the GPL and OSD#9.

> The GPL may cover the work as a whole, but the LGPLv2 still covers the library.

Sorry, but what exactly is "work as a whole", and "the LGPLv2 still
covers the library" in this context?

Feel free to correct me:

"work as a whole" <- all works ("sections") of "combined work" forming
an aggregate of GPL and LGPL works;

"the LGPLv2 still covers the library" <- the library is also available
under LGPL separatedly from GPL work in "work as a whole" (see above).

?

TIA.

regards,
alexander.

[John Cowan]

Brendan Scott scripsit:

> "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.*"

Permissions, yes.  All the parts must offer the permissions of the GPLv2.
But it is not required that all the parts likewise impose the restrictions
of the GPLv2, only that the work as a whole do so.

--
A poetical purist named Cowan           [that's me: cowan@...]
Once put the rest of us dowan.          [on xml-dev]
    "Your verse would be sweeter        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If it only had metre
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan."     [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay