Re: License furor

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:10:39PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> 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."

Interesting.  I don't think I have seen that version of the BSD
license.  Yes, not only would that be GPL incompatible, but I think it
would restrict the BSD code from being used in commercial derived
products as well, similar the the GPL.  That must be a pretty old
license.


> 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. :-)

It actually goes both ways.  You are correct that it must satisfy both
licenses.  The reason I said you must use the most restrictive
licenses in a combined work is because the less restrictive licenses
such as the BSD or MIT, or even more relaxed, public domain, do not
prevent you from adding restrictions.  That is why you can include
their code in commercial projects.  If you combine FreeBSD and GPL
code for example, the FreeBSD license, TTBOMK, allows additional
restrictions as long as you include it's copyright acknowledgment but
you could not distribute it under the FreeBSD license because that
would remove restrictions from the GPL code.

That is the reason we favor the less restrictive licenses, even over
the GPL, for primary projects, because that gives everybody more
freedom to utilize the code in branch projects and combine code with
code from other licenses, including commercial.


> 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.

I just looked over the GPL version 2 again and it looks to me like it
does require the license to be included with the binaries which would
make it compatible with the BSD license.

It says,

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
    of Sections 1 and 2 above...

Notice it says "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above".  And under
section 1, it says

    ...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.


> 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


-- 
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://www.InetAddresses.net