Re: License furor

Vincent Stemen wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:48:13PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
>>
>>I don't understand what the problem is with the new license either.  In 
>>comparing it to the modified BSD license, which supposedly is GPL 
>>compatible, the XFree86 1.1 License looks almost exactly the same.  Why 
>>is it specifically that the XFree86 1.1 License is GPL incompatible, 
>>whereas the BSD license is not?
> 
> Read the thread where we discussed this about a month ago near the end
> of April.  The exact problem was discussed in detail.  It looks very
> similar at first glance, but the following statement in the new
> XFree86 license makes it very different.
> 
> "in the same form and location as other such third-party
> acknowledgments"
> 
> I know of no other open source license that contains this condition.
> As I said before, that is a legal booby trap where no distributor of
> open source software can guarantee they are not violating the license.
> 
>>Did the XFree86 project consult with a lawyer of the FSF before
>>posting the claim that the new license is GPL incompatible?
> 
> That seems to be one of the problems.  Some of the complaints I saw
> were that the XFree86 project sprung this license on the community
> without consulting anybody or putting it up to vote, and the majority
> of the community is against it.
> 
>>I agree that condition 3 might be a bit redundant, but I don't see how 
>>that affects the GPL compatibility.
> 
>>From studying the licenses, here is how it looks to me.
> 
> I believe the reason it is incompatible is because of the restriction
> I mentioned above.  In order to not violate the new XFree86 license, a
> combined work would have to apply the new license to GPL code which
> would put conditions on it that are not in the GPL license.  In the
> GPL, in section 2B, it says,
> 
>     b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>     parties under the terms of this License.

People claim that this problem in the XFree86 1.1 License is similar to 
the "advertising clause" problem of the original BSD license.  According 
to the GNU GPL website, that license was GPL incompatible because of 
this clause in the GPL:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise 
of the rights granted herein."

The GPL FAQ answers these:
"What does it mean to say that two licenses are 'compatible'?"
"What does it mean to say a license is 'compatible with the GPL'?"
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible>

If you read these, it seems that you can't satisfy the GPL if you fully 
combine (not just aggregate or link) any GPLed software with software 
that has any license that has any restriction not already contained in 
the GPL (which can also be a somewhat subjective matter).  Having the 
advertising acknowledgement clause was a restriction not already 
contained in the GPL.

> In a combined work, you must always use the most restrictive license.
> For example if you combined GPL code with FreeBSD code, you would have
> to distribute it under the GPL license.  The FreeBSD license states,

Not true.  In order to combine the softwares, it must be possible to 
satisfy both licenses at once.  The only reason why this is not possible 
with the GPL is because of the "You may not impose any further 
restrictions"... uh, restriction. :-)

Doing my best in trying to scan over the GPL, I don't think that the 
modified BSD license is in reality GPL-compatible (if one is going to 
nit-pick in the way that they are saying that XF86 1.1 License is 
incompatible) because the modified BSD requires that both the source 
code and the binary display the BSD license and the copyright notice, 
whereas the the GPL only requires that the source code display the 
license and copyright notice.  One might say that it is irrelevant, 
because GPL software requires you to also make the source code 
available.*  Key word: available.  They don't specify exactly one way 
that you must make it available.  Someone could sell the source code 
separately.  Which is great, you can buy software in binary and never 
get a copy of the license unless you paid extra to get the source code 
as well.

*but I think that would be hypocritical and illogical if one were to 
nit-pick on the XF86 1.1 License and not the BSD in this way

Now I just need to find a lawyer to back me up on this.

Peace,
William