Spot - could you comment on this? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636250
Source files have the following preamble:
HotEqn is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; HotEqn is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
"OP" == Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com writes:
OP> The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the OP> license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
Does http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version... not answer this question?
- J<
On 09/21/2010 01:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"OP" == Orion Poplawskiorion@cora.nwra.com writes:
OP> The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the OP> license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
Does http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version... not answer this question?
- J<
Sorry, yes I believe it does. My bad.
On 09/21/2010 03:08 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Spot - could you comment on this? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636250
Source files have the following preamble:
HotEqn is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; HotEqn is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
It's okay, but if no version is specified in the code or corresponding documentation (note: _NOT_ COPYING), then it is GPL+.
~spot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 21.09.2010 21:34, schrieb Tom "spot" Callaway:
The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
It's okay, but if no version is specified in the code or corresponding documentation (note: _NOT_ COPYING), then it is GPL+.
Why not COPYING? If an author copying a license text in his upstream distribution, their declares that the terms written down in this document should be apply to this work which should release.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jochen Schmitt Jochen@herr-schmitt.de wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 21.09.2010 21:34, schrieb Tom "spot" Callaway:
The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
It's okay, but if no version is specified in the code or corresponding documentation (note: _NOT_ COPYING), then it is GPL+.
Why not COPYING? If an author copying a license text in his upstream distribution, their declares that the terms written down in this document should be apply to this work which should release.
IANAL, but I've seen project websites where the license declaration just link to the current GPL page on the GNU website, even when this might conflict with what the headers on the source files actually say. Presumably the situation with bundled COPYING files are the same -- that, given that the files might become detached from the bundle and reused elsewhere (hello, Sun RPC), that we can't attach any legal significance to the copyright file that comes with the bundle or is posted on a website, certainly not when it comes to details as to which version is to be used.
Naturally, I'm just speculating here and I'd love to either get confirmed or rebutted.
Thanks,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 21.09.2010 21:54, schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim:
IANAL, but I've seen project websites where the license declaration just link to the current GPL page on the GNU website, even when this might conflict with what the headers on the source files actually say. Presumably the situation with bundled COPYING files are the same -- that, given that the files might become detached from the bundle and reused elsewhere (hello, Sun RPC), that we can't attach any legal significance to the copyright file that comes with the bundle or is posted on a website, certainly not when it comes to details as to which version is to be used.
I can confirm with you. The main issue is, that OSS developers are technicans and no laywers. In an idial world each source file has an own short copyright note in the header with a exact and short license declaration and the upstream tar ball contains a file with the literal text of the license. But remember, I have said that developers are annoyed to talk about licensing stuff.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
On 09/21/2010 03:54 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jochen Schmitt Jochen@herr-schmitt.de wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 21.09.2010 21:34, schrieb Tom "spot" Callaway:
The gpl.txt file included in the package is of version 3 of the license, but the preamble doesn't state a version. Is this okay?
It's okay, but if no version is specified in the code or corresponding documentation (note: _NOT_ COPYING), then it is GPL+.
Why not COPYING? If an author copying a license text in his upstream distribution, their declares that the terms written down in this document should be apply to this work which should release.
IANAL, but I've seen project websites where the license declaration just link to the current GPL page on the GNU website, even when this might conflict with what the headers on the source files actually say. Presumably the situation with bundled COPYING files are the same -- that, given that the files might become detached from the bundle and reused elsewhere (hello, Sun RPC), that we can't attach any legal significance to the copyright file that comes with the bundle or is posted on a website, certainly not when it comes to details as to which version is to be used.
Well, this is true, but the GPL/LGPL are notably special.
1) COPYING is not considered part of the copyrighted work. If you think about this for a second, it makes sense. For example, look at what GPLv2 says:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
If COPYING was part of the copyrighted work (and thus, was available under the terms of the GPLv2, it would have the right to modify).
2) Now, look at this wording (from GPLv2):
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
The inclusion of COPYING counts as this notice, even though it isn't part of the "program or other work". A mention in the documentation will also suffice, but per-file attribution is ideal.
Right after that, it defines "the Program" as:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
Remember, COPYING is not part of the "Program". The "Program" is what the GPL covers.
3) Combine that with this (again, from GPLv2):
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Conclusion: We need to look to the "Program" to specify a version number, we cannot trust what is in COPYING, specifically because COPYING says versioning depends on what the "Program" says (or fails to say), and COPYING itself is not part of the "Program".
Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure this is intentional (or at least, a happy accident), based on conversations with various folks at the FSF, and the fact that the same logic persists through v2 and v3 of the GPL and LGPL.
~spot
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jochen Schmitt -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Orion Poplawski -
Tom Callaway