Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/11/16 15:14, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Wrong.  Your duty is to license the whole work you distribute under the
>> terms of the GPL, with due notices attached and the licensing obvious to
>> the downstream recipient.  If you fail to do so, you are in violation of
>> the license you received LilyPond under and can be sued to cease and
>> desist distribution by one of the original copyright holders.
>> 
>> This is not rocket science.
>
> Where does it tell me I have to licence *MY* code as GPL (if I
> distribute it as source)?

  5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

  You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

[...]
    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
    License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This
    License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
    additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
    regardless of how they are packaged.  This License gives no
    permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
    invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

> Umm ... I've just read v3 Section 5, and I don't think that's legally
> enforceable! It's claiming rights over non-derivative works!

Sigh.  It is giving you the right of producing and distributing
derivative works as long as you adhere to certain conditions.  If you
don't adhere to those conditions, your right to the original program is
constrained to whatever rights your jurisdiction gives you by default to
the content of legally obtained copies of software.

> "or the modifications to produce it from the Program" - if it doesn't
> actually contain any code lifted from the program then *that* is *not* a
> derivative work!

Good luck trying that argument in court for something that relies on the
original program to make any sense.

>> Not even reading the original is not contributing to knowledge,
>> "Wissenschaft" or science.
>> 
>> The GPL is short.  There just is no necessity to spread one's ideas what
>> might or should have been in it instead of actually taking a look.
>> 
>> It's mentioned right in the preamble:
>> 
>>       For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>>     gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
>>     freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
>>     or can get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
>>     know their rights.
>
> Firstly, the preamble is not legally binding.

Correct.  But if you cannot be bothered reading the text of the license,
how about at least acquiring a basic clue of what it contains?  That's
what the preamble is for.

> And secondly, how does distributing AS SOURCE take away any of those
> rights?

I recommend that you reread section 5c.  It spells out _your_
obligations for redistribution.  It doesn't matter what you think should
be sufficient for heeding the handwavy spirit of Free Software.  What
matters is what is written in the license.

This is not rocket science.

> I must admit, you've made me think, but I think the GPL v3 is playing
> "fast and loose" with the definition of a derivative work.

The GPL is doing absolutely no such thing.  What constitutes a
"derivative work" depends on the jurisdiction in question.  The GPL has
no influence on that.  It only spells out the conditions that it makes
on modification and distribution _when_ the lawful definition of
"derivative work" happens to apply.  If it doesn't, the GPL can and does
not apply since it is a license and not a contract and thus cannot
restrict you from any activity you would be allowed to do in its
absence.

> If I take source repository, and ADD CODE, and then distribute that AS
> SOURCE, I'm pretty certain my additions will, legally, fall under
> "mere aggregation".

That's only the case for independent stuff, like assembling a
distribution of independent software.  Adding internal components to an
application is basically never "mere aggregation".  There must be very
explicit interfaces and/or explicit legal permissions before anything
like that is even remotely tenable to survive in court.

-- 
David Kastrup