From: Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev@gmx.net>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, bob@rattlesnake.com,
stephen@xemacs.org, andy@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:48:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200412200147.05475.pogonyshev@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x5652y0yaj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
David Kastrup wrote:
> Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev@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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-19 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-09 22:28 Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual Ben Wing
2004-12-10 23:14 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-11 0:59 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-11 1:06 ` Miles Bader
2004-12-11 10:27 ` Alan Mackenzie
2004-12-11 18:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-11 20:43 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-11 19:02 ` Stefan Monnier
2004-12-12 0:26 ` Karl Fogel
2004-12-12 8:57 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 16:56 ` Brian Palmer
2004-12-12 13:31 ` Matthew Mundell
2004-12-12 13:40 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 2:03 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-12 4:59 ` Karl Fogel
[not found] ` <m1CdWGG-0004R2C@rattlesnake.com>
2004-12-12 17:43 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 18:39 ` Florian Weimer
2004-12-12 19:24 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 19:49 ` Florian Weimer
2004-12-12 19:43 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-12 19:59 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 20:46 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-12 21:00 ` Andy Piper
2004-12-13 1:59 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-13 2:23 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-13 12:34 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2004-12-13 16:53 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-15 14:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-15 19:14 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-15 20:19 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-15 23:32 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-17 5:36 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-15 23:20 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-16 10:58 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-16 12:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-16 12:29 ` Kim F. Storm
2004-12-17 0:53 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-18 10:20 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-18 23:32 ` Miles Bader
2004-12-19 6:31 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-19 6:32 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-19 13:54 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-19 15:40 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-19 16:10 ` Paul Pogonyshev
2004-12-19 21:32 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-19 23:48 ` Paul Pogonyshev [this message]
2004-12-20 8:07 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-20 14:05 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-20 0:19 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-20 7:20 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-20 10:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-20 10:56 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-20 12:47 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-17 1:32 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-12 4:39 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-12 6:16 ` Stefan Monnier
2004-12-12 21:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-12 21:43 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-13 2:22 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-13 6:48 ` Brian Palmer
2004-12-13 10:05 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-13 17:44 ` Bruce Stephens
2004-12-14 13:09 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-14 2:56 ` Karl Fogel
2004-12-14 14:16 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-13 4:23 ` Dhruva
2004-12-13 19:51 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-13 20:03 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-14 10:03 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-12-14 10:14 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-14 14:09 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-14 14:25 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-14 20:19 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-14 22:09 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-15 0:12 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-15 8:03 ` Per Abrahamsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200412200147.05475.pogonyshev@gmx.net \
--to=pogonyshev@gmx.net \
--cc=andy@xemacs.org \
--cc=bob@rattlesnake.com \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=stephen@xemacs.org \
--cc=xemacs-beta@xemacs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).