Hi Dave,
thanks for your quick reply. I'll keep fedora-legal-list on copy, perhaps they want to comment.
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:39 -0400, dcoffin@cybercom.net wrote:
Hi Nils,
I changed the text because some customers are paranoidabout the letters "GPL". It seems that Debian is bothered by:
(a) include full source code*
Now I don't need to exactly match the GPL, but I mustrequire something that commercial software companies would never accept, without creating problems for distributors of free software.
How about changing "include" to "offer, at no extracharge,"?
I'm not a lawyer ;-), but the source code provisions in the GPL are a bit complicated -- to stay compatible, one would have to formulate something compatible to 32 lines of legalese in the GPL license ;-). I don't know about your customers, but I think an easy way to stay compatible to the GPL would be dual-licensing, e.g. extend the text to something like:
"... *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as "full source code". ALTERNATIVELY, at your option, you may distribute the code under the conditions of the GNU [Lesser] General Public License Version 2[.1] [(or, at your option, any later version)] [continue with standard GPL blurb]"
Of course, the version of the [L]GPL and whether you allow later versions is up to you (it's your code). Would your customers be scared away by that?
Thanks, Nils
Dave Coffin 9/5/2007On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:08:33PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
Hi Dave,
I'm the Fedora/Red Hat Enterprise Linux package maintainer for dcraw and when going over the licenses of some of my packages I found that the licensing blurb of dcraw.c has changed like this ("-": old, "+": new version):
--- 8< ---
- Attention! Some parts of this program are restricted under the
- terms of the GNU General Public License. Such code is enclosed
- in "BEGIN GPL BLOCK" and "END GPL BLOCK" declarations.
- Any code not declared GPL is free for all uses.
- No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However,
- to lawfully redistribute this code, you must either (a) include
- full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED
- functions, (b) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them,
- or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c,
- or (c) purchase a license from the author.
- Starting in Revision 1.237, the code to support Foveon cameras
- is under GPL.
- The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED
- since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses.
- To lawfully redistribute dcraw.c, you must either (a) include
- full source code for all executable files containing restricted
- functions, (b) remove these functions, re-implement them, or
- copy them from an earlier, non-GPL Revision of dcraw.c, or (c)
- purchase a license from the author.
- *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
- homepage qualifies as "full source code".
--- >8 ---
With the upcoming Fedora version 8, we want all packages' licensing terms be listed in the package (e.g. "GPLv2+" for GNU GPL Version 2 or later"). Now I'm a bit unsure about what to do about the terms of dcraw.c and whether they are still GPL compatible(*) and so forth.
(*): IIRC, GPL allows distribution of a binary without source code but a written offer to ship it on request. The source code provisions in the dcraw terms might be "additional restrictions" that aren't GPL compatible.
Would you please shed some light on this? I'd very much appreciate it.
Thanks in advance, Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 10:31 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
I'm not a lawyer ;-), but the source code provisions in the GPL are a bit complicated -- to stay compatible, one would have to formulate something compatible to 32 lines of legalese in the GPL license ;-). I don't know about your customers, but I think an easy way to stay compatible to the GPL would be dual-licensing
Agreed. Dual licensing this code would make things a LOT easier for Fedora.
~spot
Hi Nils,
How about this text:
No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However, to lawfully redistribute dcraw, you must either (a) offer, at no extra charge, full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED functions, (b) distribute this code under some version of the GPL, (c) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them, or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c, or (d) purchase a license from the author.
The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses.
*If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as "full source code".
I'm not sure "some version of the GPL" is precise enough. Are there any bugs in early GPL versions that I should know about?
Dave Coffin 9/6/2007
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
Hi Dave,
thanks for your quick reply. I'll keep fedora-legal-list on copy, perhaps they want to comment.
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:39 -0400, dcoffin@cybercom.net wrote:
Hi Nils,
I changed the text because some customers are paranoidabout the letters "GPL". It seems that Debian is bothered by:
(a) include full source code*
Now I don't need to exactly match the GPL, but I mustrequire something that commercial software companies would never accept, without creating problems for distributors of free software.
How about changing "include" to "offer, at no extracharge,"?
I'm not a lawyer ;-), but the source code provisions in the GPL are a bit complicated -- to stay compatible, one would have to formulate something compatible to 32 lines of legalese in the GPL license ;-). I don't know about your customers, but I think an easy way to stay compatible to the GPL would be dual-licensing, e.g. extend the text to something like:
"... *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as "full source code". ALTERNATIVELY, at your option, you may distribute the code under the conditions of the GNU [Lesser] General Public License Version 2[.1] [(or, at your option, any later version)] [continue with standard GPL blurb]"
Of course, the version of the [L]GPL and whether you allow later versions is up to you (it's your code). Would your customers be scared away by that?
Thanks, Nils
Dave Coffin 9/5/2007On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:08:33PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
Hi Dave,
I'm the Fedora/Red Hat Enterprise Linux package maintainer for dcraw and when going over the licenses of some of my packages I found that the licensing blurb of dcraw.c has changed like this ("-": old, "+": new version):
--- 8< ---
- Attention! Some parts of this program are restricted under the
- terms of the GNU General Public License. Such code is enclosed
- in "BEGIN GPL BLOCK" and "END GPL BLOCK" declarations.
- Any code not declared GPL is free for all uses.
- No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However,
- to lawfully redistribute this code, you must either (a) include
- full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED
- functions, (b) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them,
- or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c,
- or (c) purchase a license from the author.
- Starting in Revision 1.237, the code to support Foveon cameras
- is under GPL.
- The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED
- since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses.
- To lawfully redistribute dcraw.c, you must either (a) include
- full source code for all executable files containing restricted
- functions, (b) remove these functions, re-implement them, or
- copy them from an earlier, non-GPL Revision of dcraw.c, or (c)
- purchase a license from the author.
- *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
- homepage qualifies as "full source code".
--- >8 ---
With the upcoming Fedora version 8, we want all packages' licensing terms be listed in the package (e.g. "GPLv2+" for GNU GPL Version 2 or later"). Now I'm a bit unsure about what to do about the terms of dcraw.c and whether they are still GPL compatible(*) and so forth.
(*): IIRC, GPL allows distribution of a binary without source code but a written offer to ship it on request. The source code provisions in the dcraw terms might be "additional restrictions" that aren't GPL compatible.
Would you please shed some light on this? I'd very much appreciate it.
Thanks in advance, Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
-- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 14:22 -0400, dcoffin@cybercom.net wrote:
Hi Nils,
How about this text:No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However, to lawfully redistribute dcraw, you must either (a) offer, at no extra charge, full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED functions, (b) distribute this code under some version of the GPL, (c) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them, or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c, or (d) purchase a license from the author.
The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses.
*If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as "full source code".
I'm not sure "some version of the GPL" is precise enough.Are there any bugs in early GPL versions that I should know about?
I think the wording should probably be "(b) redistribute this code under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
This is far less ambiguous, and avoids the GPLv1 (which the FSF really doesn't want anyone using anymore).
~spot
-
dcoffin＠cybercom.net -
Nils Philippsen -
Tom Callaway