From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta Subject: Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:07:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: <014501c4e4eb$3af838d0$0300a8c0@neeeeeee2> <200412191810.21569.pogonyshev@gmx.net> <200412200147.05475.pogonyshev@gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1103530123 19258 80.91.229.6 (20 Dec 2004 08:08:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, bob@rattlesnake.com, stephen@xemacs.org, andy@xemacs.org, Ben Wing Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 20 09:08:32 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CgIam-0002u3-00 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:08:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CgIlD-0001Nx-HT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:19:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CgIks-0001L8-Ed for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:18:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CgIkp-0001Ii-Lc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:18:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CgIkp-0001IY-Hi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:18:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CgIZw-0005nd-M5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:07:40 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CgIVF-0005Ot-TV; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:02:50 -0500 Original-To: Paul Pogonyshev In-Reply-To: <200412200147.05475.pogonyshev@gmx.net> (Paul Pogonyshev's message of "Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:48:55 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:31281 gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:17524 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:31281 Paul Pogonyshev writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Paul Pogonyshev 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