License question

[Orion Poplawski]

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?

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "OP" == Orion Poplawski
> <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; 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_vers...
not answer this question?

 - J<

[Orion Poplawski]

On 09/21/2010 01:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "OP" == Orion
> Poplawski<orion(a)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_vers...
>  not answer this question?
>
>    - J< 
Sorry, yes I believe it does.  My bad.

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com

[Tom Callaway]

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

[Jochen Schmitt]

-----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

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iJwEAQECAAYFAkyZCz8ACgkQZLAIBz9lVu9mhgP/VYufcPqPkZ726zZ77o1nhGnG
> LHmYnoQkx0tHrQ3Nifr8zM5fheMJHDl/Gdm+5LfgogD6BIYeD7bl4sq5OIKM0ljq
> ar3AfJSKMOC2ZE3Yx40yrURED2Ls/tip0PcYafMxMrizgd0FU4wIIfBd91f6ujU0
> yd9KQJGS1fP472zgJcU=
> =bti/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jochen Schmitt <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 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,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

[Jochen Schmitt]

-----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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iJwEAQECAAYFAkyZEvcACgkQZLAIBz9lVu90oQP/ZJoYUBiXyGjwQhyDCCpwIP//
> DODgXaTvZlWELaU2iIuUHTd1Amea0LdnbkiC0eptqaXi1h31z0GbfbwFZ4+vWvg/
> hHLg3Wz0fZFfvyeIpi6eJoCTNOvRcwJsnqcHoyI/6gFbzVXXBXerWLTVfmmu24Lx
> PJ+53IuI8mlUVSxrK7Q=
> =+u7g
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tom Callaway]

On 09/21/2010 03:54 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>  On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jochen Schmitt
> <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 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