On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:37:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be "distributed > under the same terms as the license of the original software" seems to be > an important component of Freedom. I really do think, on consideration, > that this means the actual license I had, not a big document listing all > of the licenses I might get if I paid the author or became a teacher or > ceased to operate nuclear power plants.
I agree. To me: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.[1] The "same" terms means "no more and no less". You *must* be allowed to redistribute your modifications and derived works under the "*same* terms". Now, if a license comes along and grants special rights to some third party unrelated to the licensor or the licensee, that *might* survive strict scrutiny under DFSG 3. For example, if you are not the Free Software Foundation, and you receive a work under the QPL[2] from Trolltech AS (who also are not the Free Software Foundation), the QPL could possibly require: When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the Free Software Foundation to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) used by Free Software Foundation. ...and survive a DFSG 3 analysis[3]. But what the QPL actually says is this: When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. The "initial developer" of a work copyrighted by Trolltech AS is Trolltech AS, and it's going to stay that way no matter what modifications or derviations you make. When *you* redistribute a modified or derived form of the work, you're not distributing under the "same terms", because you have a different relationship to the work than Trolltech did. Where's your non-exlcusive, royalty-free right to the changes your licensees make to *your* modificationss or derivations of Trolltech's work? The answer: back with TrollTech AS. You enjoy *fewer* rights than the initial developer, even though you're using the same license. And you're passing along that same set of reduced rights to everyone you give a copy of the work to, modified or not. DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say: The license must allow modifications and derived works. ...hmm? Is it really the assertion of people on this mailing list that DFSG 3 really means: The license must allow modifications and derived works; all rights to such modifications and derived works can remain with the original licensor, who may or may not extend license to those modifications and derivations to the licensees of the original. or: The license must allow modifications and derived works; all rights to such modifications and derived works can remain with the original licensor, as long as they extend the same license terms to all the same parties who received the license to the unmodified, underived work. ...hmm? Or maybe the assertion isn't really "all rights to such modifications...can remain with the original licensor", maybe just certain rights, those that whoever is speaking happens to think are useful. If this is what DFSG 3 "really means", why isn't that what it *says*? To summarize: DFSG 3 says: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.[1] This says the "same terms", not the "same license", since it is possible for a license to privilege some licensees over others (if this weren't true, we wouldn't have DFSG 5 or 6, would we?). The "same" terms means "no more and no less". You *must* be allowed to redistribute your modifications and derived works under the "*same* terms" as the original license. If you cannot do so because the original license doesn't grant to you some specially privileged status encoded in its terms, then the license fails DFSG 3. This was so intuitively obvious to the subscribers of this list in 1999 that the point wasn't even argued[4]. Perhaps Joseph Carter would return to Debian if he knew that there were so many more people in the Project now as eager to fritter away our freedoms as he was. He'd feel much more at home. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [2] http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html [3] I'd likely argue that such a clause is non-DFSG-free, though. Feel free to start a new thread if you'd like to hear why -- but until such a license really exists, I daresay the question is premature. [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00072.html -- G. Branden Robinson | Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
