On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:17:15PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > However, we are familiar with lots of situations where people with a > poor grasp of the facts create all kinds of problems. DFCL-to-GPL > "conversion" looks to me like it has the same potential.
That is true. I believe that a DFCL FAQ will be mandatory, not just
while we are drafting this license, but afterwards, so that we can
explain the tricky parts.
> If you feel that the DFCL needs an explicit GPL "conversion" clause,
> you/we should be careful to make sure that this situation is very
> carefully worded and well documented to avoid situations like we have
> seen with the OpenSSL and KDE situations, so that there's no dispute
> about how to handle DFCL->GPL "conversions" and "conversions back" and
> all that.
I entirely agree.
> I would identify the problems as follows. Again, for the record, these
> are points of potential misunderstanding, not real legal problems.
> Also, I'm not looking for answers to the questions personally; think of
> this as a draft for a DFCL FAQ without the answers.
>
> - Can I remove the DFCL license if I incorporate a DFCL-licensed work
> into a GPLed work?
No. The DFCL does not permit the removal of its terms from a work
licensed under those terms. The GNU GPL, moreover, does not require
that work being incorporated into a GPLed work be stripped of its
license text.
> - What license must I use to license non-trivial modifications to a
> DFCL document generally?
You can use the DFCL, the GNU GPL, or any license compatible with either
of these, such as the MIT/X11 license, the 2- or 3-clause versions of
the BSD license, the GNU LGPL, or the traditional GNU documentation
license.
(Might want to drop the last since the FSF has, unfortunately, disavowed
it in favor of the GNU FDL.)
> - What license must I use to license non-trivial modifications to a
> DFCL document that is part of a GPLed work?
You can use the DFCL, the GNU GPL, or any license compatible with either
of these, such as the MIT/X11 license, the 2- or 3-clause versions of
the BSD license, the GNU LGPL, or the traditional GNU documentation
license.
> - How do I "separate" a DFCL-licensed document from a GPLed compilation
> in order to exercise rights under the DFCL in it?
1) You identify the parts of the work that are licensed under the DFCL:
each file should have a copyright notice within it that indicates the
licensing terms.
2) If a record of any non-trivial changes has been made under the GNU
GPL (via prominent notices within the file as required by the GNU GPL),
these changes must be excised. The GNU GPL does not grant permission to
redistribute works under its license with additional restrictions
applied, such as the endorsements notice that is mandated for
DFCL-licensed works that are not combined with GPL-licensed works.
Therefore, any changes to the DFCL-licensed work that are significant
enough to merit independent copyright protection as works in their own
right must be removed if they are licensed under the GNU GPL. If there
is uncertainty about whether or not copyright is being asserted over a
substantial change, or what license has been applied to that change, it
is advisable to contact the author of that change for clarification.
3) One any GPL-licensed changes to a DFCL-licensed work have been
removed, the work may be modified and distributed under the terms of the
DFCL alone.
> - When do I have to strip the endorsements from a DFCL-licensed work?
The endorsements, which consist of a list of names of individuals or
entities, but which do not include the endorsement notice itself
("$QUOTE_FROM_ENDORSEMENTS_CLAUSE"), must -- in general -- be removed
when you modify a DFCL-licensed work in any for any reason. If you have
received permission, privately or publicly, from an endorser to preserve
his, her, or its endorsement under a set of circumstances that applies to
you, then you may retain that endorsement. The terms under which you
are permitted to retain an endorser's endorsement are solely determined
by your negotiation with the endorser, and cannot be overridden by this
license.
> - When do I have to restore them?
You are never compelled by the terms of this license to list any
endorsements (which consist of a list of names of individuals or
entities, but which do not include the endorsement notice itself
("$QUOTE_FROM_ENDORSEMENTS_CLAUSE"). Even if you have permission from
an endorser to include his, her, or its endorsement on the version of a
work you are planning to modify or distribute, you are not required by
this license to include that endorsement.
You are required by section $N of this license to retain the endorsement
notice itself ("$QUOTE_FROM_ENDORSEMENTS_CLAUSE") even if there are no
actual endorsements. Under special circumstances described in
clause $N, the requirement to retain the endorsement notice becomes
optional instead of mandatory.
Thanks a lot, Jeff. We now have the beginnings of a FAQ. :)
--
G. Branden Robinson | Convictions are more dangerous
Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpUWQ6Akpz4y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
