El 11/12/18 a les 22:33, Giacomo ha escrit: > On December 11, 2018 7:54:16 PM UTC, Eloi Notario <entfe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit: >>> [...] >>> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the >> Hacking >>> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any version proprietary. >> Being Sencha the copyright owner (noting for clarity as I cut that from >> the quote), I am quite skeptical this argument will hold at least under >> Spanish law and probably under all those jurisdictions where the >> "Public Domain" concept is not acknowledged because no author rights can be >> waived. This includes the right to decide how -and if- a work is to be >> distributed. > As should be clear in the text you quoted, I was talking about an > hypothetical ExtJS that was > > - a Derived Work > - of a software under the Hacking License
Maybe I cut too much text from the original quote. Let me pick a previous paragraph: > 2. Sencha releases as GPLv3 only the first major version and the first > minor version of a new release, and only release as proprietary the > code the successive minor versions (that can largerly extend the > widget available). This is, as you stated, what could happen if the original work was licensed under the GPLv3. However, if we're talking about a derived work, then the proprietary selling of this extended package is already a violation of the GPL. The fact that, with your license, this would too end in a violation is moot: your "new" protection already exists. > This, just like with the GPL, would bind them to distribute their Derived > Work under the same License that they received it. > > Also, in no way the Hacking License put the covered work under public domain > (and if you read it this way, I would really appreciate if you can explain > your interpretation so that I can clarify the text). I did not say so. Even more, where I live any "public domain" license is actually void and as such may mean the same as full protection, that's why the Creative Commons came with a CC-0 license that says "if where you live is public domain legally acknowledged then that's what you have, if not then your rights are essentially "do as you please" with this work as long as you don't claim ownership". What I said is where "public domain" is not a valid status for a work is because some author rights cannot be waived. One of them, the transfer of authorship. > The non-exclusive copyright assignment doesn't waive any right, just shares > the transferable ones with upstream copyright holders "to the extent > permitted by law" and under the license conditions (if the upstream copyright > holders violate such conditions they lose such rights). And what makes your license different from the GPL in that point? If you make modifications subject to copyright law, you retain the full copyright while also having your changes subject to the GPL. From the modifier's point of view, the GPL protects you against downstream picking up your changes and privately licensing them (so both upstream *and* you can sue) while copyright law protects you against upstream doing the same (because *you* are the copyright holder of your modifications). This was just pinpointing a detail. However, on the broader issue I understand that Debian is not only obliged, by manifesto, to have only free software on main, but also to make sure that the resulting combined work is also distributable: just think about the infamous "OpenSSL exception". That fact that your license may be considered free software is a requirement, but by itself is not enough: OpenSSL is free software, a program which uses OpenSSL may be free software by itself, but the combined work may not without the exception clause.
