4:10 p.m.
David Kastrup wrote:
b) why it would be technically impossible for you to change the
XEmacs
manual licence to the GFDL: it does not seem like you have handed out
any written assurances that the licence is never going to change.
I think because contributing a piece of work implicitly means that you
agree to distribute it under the _current_ license. So, to relicense
a piece of contributed work, you need an agreement from the author,
either got in advance (like FSF copyright assignment includes) or got
right before the license change. Since XEmacs has many contributors
who hold their copyright, this means that license switch would require
collecting agreements from all of them, which might be practically
impossible.
That said, I agree with you that this is mostly an XEmacs problem,
largely caused by their policy of not collecting copyright assignments.
The situation is not nice, but I don't see why FSF should go against
its decision and its policies. As Robert Chassell said (or meant),
FSF cannot ask other to use GFDL if it doesn't use it itself. After
all, XEmacs isn't fully cooperative either, since FSF won't merge in
non-assigned code. Yes, this is not a legal problem, but a matter of
FSF policy, but still...
Paul Pogonyshev
9:32 p.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev(a)gmx.net> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
> b) why it would be technically impossible for you to change the XEmacs
> manual licence to the GFDL: it does not seem like you have handed out
> any written assurances that the licence is never going to change.
I think because contributing a piece of work implicitly means that you
agree to distribute it under the _current_ license.
Whose theory is that? I don't see any of it in copyright law, and I
don't see any of it in the GPL. This sounds suspiciously like the
"viral licence" theories where a contact with GPLed software magically
makes all of your software free for the taking.
This is simply not true. To have software GPLed, you need to
explicitly licence it that way, regardless of whether it has come in
contact with other GPLed software or not. Only if it has, you must
not redistribute a combined product under a different licence. But
there is no automatic remedy involved: you always have _several_
choices to come into compliance: licence the whole under GPL, or
replace the GPLed parts by something different, or stop distributing
it.
So, to relicense a piece of contributed work, you need an agreement
from the author, either got in advance (like FSF copyright
assignment includes) or got right before the license change.
To "relince" something it must have been licensed in the first place.
Since XEmacs has many contributors who hold their copyright, this
means that license switch would require collecting agreements from
all of them, which might be practically impossible.
Well, this "practical impossibility" is exactly what Emacs development
has to put up with: collecting agreements from all contributors.
That said, I agree with you that this is mostly an XEmacs problem,
largely caused by their policy of not collecting copyright
assignments.
It is not only collection of a copyright assignment (which makes
relicensing possible). As far as I can see, their process does not
involve even getting _any_ formal licence to use the work.
As long as they are just relying on contributors playing nice with
them in case of necessity (and GPL v2 is going to be replaced with GPL
v3 at one time, too, and that will probably also mean that XEmacs has
to follow suit at one time), they might as well see how the
contributors will react to a licence change.
The situation is not nice, but I don't see why FSF should go
against
its decision and its policies. As Robert Chassell said (or meant),
FSF cannot ask other to use GFDL if it doesn't use it itself. After
all, XEmacs isn't fully cooperative either, since FSF won't merge in
non-assigned code.
Which is the FSF's choice. The difference is that XEmacs has decided
not to bother about assignments and stuff, and due to that decision
they don't have such a general cooperation to offer in a manner useful
for Emacs. In contrast, the FSF still has the choice to licence the
Emacs manual under different free licences because they bothered about
the assignment, and they bother about licences.
So the FSF, in contrast to XEmacs, has retained the technical
possibility to "cooperate" (namely abandon the business of trying to
choose a licence of their own and instead let the terms be determined
by XEmacs' different processes), simply because they have been more
careful.
I have yet to see a good reason why this should be necessary (I don't
think the "contributions are automagically licenced from the
contributor to the potential redistributor without explicit agreement
like the rest is" theory holds much legal merit) as well as desirable.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
11:48 p.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
David Kastrup wrote:
Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev(a)gmx.net> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> b) why it would be technically impossible for you to change the XEmacs
>> manual licence to the GFDL: it does not seem like you have handed out
>> any written assurances that the licence is never going to change.
>
> I think because contributing a piece of work implicitly means that you
> agree to distribute it under the _current_ license.
Whose theory is that? I don't see any of it in copyright law, and I
don't see any of it in the GPL.
Mine, I guess. Just to note, I'm not particularly familiar with all
this stuff, so take it lightly, please. I'm just on that ``common
sense'' ground.
This sounds suspiciously like the
"viral licence" theories where a contact with GPLed software magically
makes all of your software free for the taking.
I fail to see much similarity, but feel free to elaborate.
This is simply not true. To have software GPLed, you need to
explicitly licence it that way, regardless of whether it has come in
contact with other GPLed software or not. Only if it has, you must
not redistribute a combined product under a different licence. But
there is no automatic remedy involved: you always have _several_
choices to come into compliance: licence the whole under GPL, or
replace the GPLed parts by something different, or stop distributing
it.
> So, to relicense a piece of contributed work, you need an agreement
> from the author, either got in advance (like FSF copyright
> assignment includes) or got right before the license change.
To "relince" something it must have been licensed in the first place.
I cannot understand what exactly you think about contributions without
signed papers. Let's try to filter it out (again, I'm basing on my
common sense and little knowledge of copyright law, so, please, be
kind to my mistakes.)
So, let's assume John contributes a large patch (500 lines of code) to
XEmacs. Since we are talking of XEmacs here, he is not asked for any
copyright assignments or other legal papers.
Now, what is the legal status of XEmacs + John's patch now? (We assume
XEmacs is legally distributed under GNU GPL before the patch is added.)
I'm listing all possibilities I can think of.
Possibility 1. John's patch is automagically licensed under GNU GPL
and ``license control'' is miraculously transferred to some mistical
``XEmacs spirit,'' that can change the license at whim, like FSF could
if it wasn't bound by our assignment papers.
This doesn't sound real.
Possibility 2. John's patch is automagically licensed under GNU GPL,
but to relicense it, you need his blessing. This is what I guessed
in the previous message based on XEmacs as a whole being distributed
under GNU GPL.
However, you wrote that John's code couldn't be licensed implicitly:
``To have software GPLed, you need to explicitly licence it that way,
regardless of whether it has come in contact with other GPLed software
or not.'' What does ``explicitly'' means, BTW? I'm distributing a
program I wrote, with each file saying it comes under GPL and the GPL
text in `COPYING'. Is this explicit enough? Should John distribute
his patch and GPL text along with it to make it explicit? Or is
signing legal papers the only option? What is the difference between
licensing done by the project original author and its contributors in
terms of licensing?
Possibility 3. John's patch is not licensed at all, because he didn't
explictly license it.
However, to the best of my knowledge of copyright law, you cannot
even _use_ non-licensed work, not to mention modify or distribute it.
This means that XEmacs people cannot legally merge John's patch in.
In other words, XEmacs + John's patch combination is illegal to use,
modify or distribute...
Possibility 4. John loses the copyright on his contribution.
That would solve the problem, but placing something in public domain
is the decision of the author, so implicit lossage of copyright sounds
way less realistic than implicit licensing. Besides, some of XEmacs
files do carry other than FSF's copyrights.
Possibility 5. XEmacs does require some sort of explicit licensing of
contributions.
Again, that would solve all problems, but from what I've heard here,
this is simply not the case.
So, to summarize, if my reasoning is correct, there are only two options
left.
Either
XEmacs is distributed under GNU GPL, because each contributor
implicitly (and some of them explicitly, by assigning copyright
to FSF) licensed it under that license.
Or
XEmacs is used, distributed and modified illegally, because
some parts of it are not licensed by copyright holders in any
way. This means that people working on XEmacs, as well as
distributors and even common users can be sued for copyright
infringement (or how do they call it.)
I personally don't feel easy about the second option. I'd like to be
convinced that either the first or a third (missed here) option is
true.
Paul Pogonyshev
8:07 a.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev(a)gmx.net> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
> Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev(a)gmx.net> writes:
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> b) why it would be technically impossible for you to change the XEmacs
> >> manual licence to the GFDL: it does not seem like you have handed out
> >> any written assurances that the licence is never going to change.
> >
> > I think because contributing a piece of work implicitly means that you
> > agree to distribute it under the _current_ license.
>
> Whose theory is that? I don't see any of it in copyright law, and I
> don't see any of it in the GPL.
Mine, I guess. Just to note, I'm not particularly familiar with all
this stuff, so take it lightly, please. I'm just on that ``common
sense'' ground.
> This sounds suspiciously like the
> "viral licence" theories where a contact with GPLed software magically
> makes all of your software free for the taking.
I fail to see much similarity, but feel free to elaborate.
It is the same "it comes into contact with GPL software, so it
magically gets licenced as GPLed software" theory.
> This is simply not true. To have software GPLed, you need to
> explicitly licence it that way, regardless of whether it has come
> in contact with other GPLed software or not. Only if it has, you
> must not redistribute a combined product under a different licence.
> But there is no automatic remedy involved: you always have
> _several_ choices to come into compliance: licence the whole under
> GPL, or replace the GPLed parts by something different, or stop
> distributing it.
>
> > So, to relicense a piece of contributed work, you need an agreement
> > from the author, either got in advance (like FSF copyright
> > assignment includes) or got right before the license change.
>
> To "reli[ce]nce" something it must have been licensed in the first
> place.
I cannot understand what exactly you think about contributions
without signed papers. Let's try to filter it out (again, I'm
basing on my common sense and little knowledge of copyright law, so,
please, be kind to my mistakes.)
So, let's assume John contributes a large patch (500 lines of code)
to XEmacs. Since we are talking of XEmacs here, he is not asked for
any copyright assignments or other legal papers.
Now, what is the legal status of XEmacs + John's patch now? (We
assume XEmacs is legally distributed under GNU GPL before the patch
is added.) I'm listing all possibilities I can think of.
Possibility 1. John's patch is automagically licensed under GNU GPL
and ``license control'' is miraculously transferred to some mistical
``XEmacs spirit,'' that can change the license at whim, like FSF
could if it wasn't bound by our assignment papers.
This doesn't sound real.
Possibility 2. John's patch is automagically licensed under GNU
GPL, but to relicense it, you need his blessing. This is what I
guessed in the previous message based on XEmacs as a whole being
distributed under GNU GPL.
However, you wrote that John's code couldn't be licensed implicitly:
``To have software GPLed, you need to explicitly licence it that
way, regardless of whether it has come in contact with other GPLed
software or not.'' What does ``explicitly'' means, BTW?
If you are not assigning copyright, then a written and signed
statement is explicit enough for the law.
I'm distributing a program I wrote, with each file saying it
comes
under GPL and the GPL text in `COPYING'. Is this explicit enough?
The last time I looked, typical contributors were not distributing
complete versions of XEmacs. Even if they were, if they change their
mind afterwards about their contribution, all you can demand is then
that they stop distributing XEmacs with their patch in it.
Should John distribute his patch and GPL text along with it to make
it explicit?
The GPL text is a text. It's connection to the material must be
established. It is not established by the files sitting in the same
directory. If you have an exchange of consideration, like if you are
paying somebody, _then_ the material is licenced to you and, absent
any other written communication, it may be assumed that the
accompanying licence file is considered valid if it has been attached
by the selling party. But if you, say, pay somebody for working on
XEmacs code and you don't put the GPL requirement in the contract, and
you pay him for code (not for work hours), then you may run into legal
trouble if he later claims he did not intend his work to be made
available to third parties.
Or is signing legal papers the only option? What is the difference
between licensing done by the project original author and its
contributors in terms of licensing?
Nothing. If the original author changes his mind, explains that the
GPL licence file landed up in that directory by accident and he did
not have permission from management, anyway, and stops handing out
copies, and you have not given him anything in return, you can't drag
him to court for damages.
Possibility 3. John's patch is not licensed at all, because he
didn't explictly license it.
However, to the best of my knowledge of copyright law, you cannot
even _use_ non-licensed work, not to mention modify or distribute
it. This means that XEmacs people cannot legally merge John's patch
in. In other words, XEmacs + John's patch combination is illegal to
use, modify or distribute...
There you are. If you need to go to court with a contributor that has
changed its mind, this is what you will get stuck with. Lots of
business gets done every day without anything written down (life would
get complicated otherwise). But if somebody changes his mind
afterwards, then the situation better be a standard situation that a
court can resolve without making it a major case.
Possibility 5. XEmacs does require some sort of explicit licensing
of contributions.
Again, that would solve all problems, but from what I've heard here,
this is simply not the case.
It would solve the problem of legality. It would not solve the
problem of having a single major copyright holder able to enforce
copyright in case of licence breaches (which is why the FSF demands
assignments instead of licences).
Either
XEmacs is distributed under GNU GPL, because each contributor
implicitly (and some of them explicitly, by assigning
copyright to FSF) licensed it under that license.
Or
XEmacs is used, distributed and modified illegally, because
some parts of it are not licensed by copyright holders in any
way. This means that people working on XEmacs, as well as
distributors and even common users can be sued for copyright
infringement (or how do they call it.)
Or
XEmacs is used, distributed and modified under the assumption
that all of the various copyright holders (which might not
even be tracked) have given their consent to do so and will
never withdraw it. Nobody can be sued for copyright
infringement until it can be shown that this was done on
purpose. Merely distributors and users can be ordered to stop
using copies of XEmacs with the respective code in it. This
will open the suitor for a counterclaim _if_ he can be shown
to have distributed XEmacs himself. In addition, if some
party distributed binary-only versions of XEmacs, and the
XEmacs team would try to sue him, he can have the case thrown
out of court if he can show that XEmacs itself uses code from
him without explicit permission.
I personally don't feel easy about the second option. I'd
like to be
convinced that either the first or a third (missed here) option is
true.
When in doubt, ask a lawyer. The above is not legal advice, it is
just one possible view. The more possible views exist, the more
expensive court cases become, and the less predictable the outcome.
The FSF is a small organization that does not have the resources to go
to court with some company like SCO, and XEmacs is even smaller.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
2:05 p.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev(a)gmx.net> asks,
I'm distributing a program I wrote, with each file saying it comes
under GPL and the GPL text in `COPYING'. Is this explicit enough?
No. I do not know whether you are connected to an employer or
university who owns your work.
You may not have the legal rights either to distribute or to claim a
copyright on work done on your own time using only your own resources.
--
Robert J. Chassell
bob(a)rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
12:19 a.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
Which is the FSF's choice. The difference is that XEmacs has
decided not to bother about assignments and stuff, and due to
that decision they don't have such a general cooperation to
offer in a manner useful for Emacs. In contrast, the FSF
still has the choice to licence the Emacs manual under
different free licences because they bothered about the
assignment, and they bother about licences.
You seem to think that it is the duty of XEmacs to do whatever is necessary
to assure that GNU Emacs can use its code, even to the extent of hindering
the development of XEmacs itself. In fact, if we had insisted on such a
policy, we could not have gotten the sorts of corporate assistance (Sun,
Amdahl, INS Engineering and others) that we got.
7:20 a.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
"Ben Wing" <ben(a)666.com> writes:
> Which is the FSF's choice. The difference is that XEmacs has
> decided not to bother about assignments and stuff, and due to
> that decision they don't have such a general cooperation to
> offer in a manner useful for Emacs. In contrast, the FSF
> still has the choice to licence the Emacs manual under
> different free licences because they bothered about the
> assignment, and they bother about licences.
You seem to think that it is the duty of XEmacs to do whatever is
necessary to assure that GNU Emacs can use its code, even to the
extent of hindering the development of XEmacs itself.
You seem to think that it is the duty of Emacs to do whatever is
necessary to assure that XEmacs can use its manuals under XEmacs' own
conditions, even to the extent of reverting the licence choices of
Emacs itself.
Neither is the other's duty.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
10:58 a.m.
New subject: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com>
writes:
Ben> David Kastrup wrote:
> Which is the FSF's choice. The difference is that XEmacs
has
> decided not to bother about assignments and stuff, and due to
> that decision they don't have such a general cooperation to
> offer in a manner useful for Emacs.
That's sad but true, although I would phrase it differently.
Ben> You seem to think that it is the duty of XEmacs to do
Ben> whatever is necessary to assure that GNU Emacs can use its
Not the duty; merely a precondition for any effort on the part of the
FSF.
Ben> code, even to the extent of hindering the development of
Ben> XEmacs itself. In fact, if we had insisted on such a policy,
Ben> we could not have gotten the sorts of corporate assistance
Ben> (Sun, Amdahl, INS Engineering and others) that we got.
Which, you should recall, the FSF has deliberately foregone, to the
extent that accepting such assistance conflicts with the overriding
goal of promoting software freedom---which you should not confuse with
promoting free software.
OK, Ben, you tried, you didn't get what you wanted, but when we decide
we'd like to synch some parts of the manual, we can apply for the
specific relicensing then, as Richard suggested.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
7277
days inactive
7278
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Ben Wing -
David Kastrup -
Paul Pogonyshev -
Robert J. Chassell -
Stephen J. Turnbull