RE: Clear up my License information

> Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> 
> > > LGPL also makes association claims ("work as a whole") - I
> > > said what I meant.
> > OK, but it unlike the GPL contains exceptions for users of the
> > LGPL:ed code so I can't see why this is relevant.
> 
> It depends on how you view the following: Is a collection of LGPLed
> modules the SAME as an LGPLed framework consisting of modules.  

Yes. The fact that the modules are logically connected somehow lies
out of the scope of copyright laws. Each book in a series have
invidual copyright for example.

Anyway, I can see why it should it matter to the LGPL if I use
one LGPL work or several LGPL:ed works.

> If
> you read MPL, there is a restriction on that such that in 
> "larger works",
> it only covers the original MPL portions.  LGPL does NOT have 
> that constraint.
> As an example of this, I say that if you want to write a 
> propriatary OpenOffice
> (LGPL)
> plugin, I think you *must* accept SISSL, because only it 
> makes an allowance
> for "larger work".

I don't know what SISSL is so I can't answer the question.
  
> > > This is incorrect.  Patches on GPLed work MUST be GPLed (not
> > > GPL compatible).
> > > You may relicense it as something else also, but at least one
> > > MUST be GPL.
> > 
> > If you have released the code under an GPL:ed compatible license
> > (read: on that have less restrictions that the GPL)
> 
> the S/N ratio on the comment is pretty low.

I'm not sure what you are after.
 
> > you can't truly release it under the GPL since you already 
> have given
> > up some of the orginal rights that copyright law grants you.
> 
> If you can't release it on a license that has less 
> (restrictions), and you certainly
> can't release it on a license that has more, it certainly 
> seems like the only
> license you can use is GPL....

But you CAN'T truly release it under the GPL since you already
given up the right to enforce some of the restrictions that
the GPL requires.

But it doesn't matter the GPL doesn't care.
 
> > In short:
> > You can consent (or not) to its release as GPL but it has no legal
> > meaning since, as I said, you already have giving up some 
> of your rights.
> > 
> > If the GPL had insisted on this the LGPL => GPL paragraph would have
> > been meaningless for starters. It doesn't so that is that.
> 
> er, the LGPL->GPL paragraph is so the mechanism they have to 
> change an LGPLed
> licensed
> item (as you can't change it otherwise).  I'm not sure what 
> you are getting at.

OK. Bad example, they are not compatible without the special clause.

Let take X11 and LGPL as and example instead they are compatible without
a special clause.

If you release it under the X11 you give up the right to enforce some
of the restrictions that the LGPL requires so you can't truely release
it under the LGPL since the extra restriction can't be enforced on
YOUR code since you already have given them up.
  
> Remember that I am admitting that I am using the LGPLed source and not
> the X11 source.  
> 
> > The only thing the a license change can do to old code is changing
> > the burden of proof. Nothing else. It can't make anybody more or
> > less guilty (or liable).
> 
> FSF's stance is that the context of the code makes a difference.  See
> becker's response in:
>  
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7665&threshold=1&commentso
rt=0&tid=117&mode=thread&startat=300&pid=0
 
I can't find anything in the thread relevant to the statement above.

Anyway the FSF can claim all they want. It is quite obvouis really.
Copyright protect "unique" expression, if the same of sufficiently
similar "unique" expression is possible to find somewhere else under
less restrictions it is quite obvious that your extra restriction
doesn't apply.

For example you publish a book written by Shakespeare that are under PD
with annotations to explain what some difficult different words and
experssions really means. It it quite obvious that I can take your book
remove the annotations and republish it since the orignal work is
have less restrictions (read: none).
 
> > > > Of course, if so, it would mean that all copyleft licenses were
> > > > essentially equal to the X11 license...
> > >
> > > Another possible outcome might be that if you require any
> > > compensation, you lose any indemnifcation (and this is not too far
> > > fetched).
> >
> > But no copyleft that I know of require anything from the end user so
> > the end user can't claim any compensation based of this.
> 
> I wasn't talking about the end user.  I was thinking about the publisher.

Yes, but who will the publisher be liable to he doesn't require anything
from the end user so he certainly can't be liable to him/her.

> > As for non end users, that is people that modify the works.
> > Well, since they modified the your work they are probably
> > on their own since any accident might be their fault.
> > 
> > No I don't think that they would be worse of concerning possible
> > liabillity.
> 
> someone needs a spellchecker :).  But why would someone distribute
anything
> that would open themselves up to liability for not cost?

True, but then it is not clear that the extra restrictions give rise to
any liabillity.
 
> > > If this happens, it would be *infinitely* worse than X11, and you are
> > > forbidden to change the license to boot (unless you add that "later"
clause AND
> > > FSF gives up copyleft - two big Ifs).  Never underestimate the legal
> > > system.
> > 
> > What do you mean?
> 
> er, which one?  I live in a society of getting sued over hot coffee....

I do not. :-)

Anyway, I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible to change the
license.
Sure it wouldn't matter for what happpend before the change, but it would
certainly matter after.
 
> > Obviously I can change the license to something less restrictive on my
code.
> 
> or more restrictive..  add to taste :)

No that is the whole point, YOU can't. 

If you have given up your some of your right you have given up some of
your rights there is no turning back. Think first sale or something
similar to first sale ("first" license :-).

> > If I said that all my code release to the Wine project was retroactively
> > public domain it would be instantly and for all times to come.
> 
> This is true only for projects where one entity owns the copyright for the
> entire piece of software.  If this isn't the case (as is the case with
many
> OS projects), changing the license is much more difficult to do.

Obviously I can only do that for MY CODE not the code other people have
written.

> > Sure it wouldn't protect me if the code contained some sort of virus or
> > timebomb or whatever but that have nothing to do with copyright.
> 
> somewhere, we went passed each other.   How can you say it has nothing to
do
> with copyrights when the indemnification in software licenses leverages
off
> of copyright law for its teeth?

Yes, but now have are not talking neglisience any longer,
we are actually talking malice and that have nothing to do
with copyright law. 

If I publish a public domain virus Iäm obviously liable copyright law
or no copyright law. But never mind it is not relevant to the discussion.