Le mercredi 15 février 2023 à 23:08 +0000, Wol a écrit : > On 15/02/2023 17:05, David Kastrup wrote: > > > Wols Lists <[antli...@youngman.org.uk](mailto:antli...@youngman.org.uk)> > > writes: > > > > > > > On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An individual source file is an individual work. > > > > > > Apparently you don't understand what licensing a work means. A license > > is not something pervading files like copyright does. A license is a > > particular permission. The GPL is a license for using a complete works, > > not individual files. > > > Please define "work". I understand perfectly what "licensing a work" > means. You are arguing that lilypond is a work. I am arguing that a file > (completely my own work) that I contribute to lilypond, is ALSO a work. > > We are both correct. > > And if I choose to licence my work under the BSD, that is my > prerogative. If you choose to reject my work based on my choice of > licence that is your prerogative. But if you accept my work, THAT DOES > NOT ALTER THE LICENCE ON MY WORK. > > > > If you do not accept the license, your rights to use a work fall back to > > the default rights granted by copyright laws of your country, and the > > person who has standing to sue you for breach of copyright is the > > copyright holder of particular code. > > > > > > > What happens if I decide to add a file under a BSD licence? The > > > copyright ON THAT FILE is not GNU, > > > > > > You are confusing copyright and license. The copyright holder > > apparently has decided to license the file to you under the BSD license. > > That includes your right to release that file as a work licensed under > > the GPL. > > > Please choose your choice of English carefully. The BSD includes the > right for you to release my BSD work as PART OF your work licenced under > the GPL. > > But as you have written it, you have just said that you can release my > BSD work as GPL. The BSD does NOT give you that right. > > > > What happens if someone decides to break your license terms by using > > that file on its own under the original license? > > > ?????????????????? THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. > > How can you break the licence terms by using a work according to the > terms it was licenced under? > > If my file has a BSD licence on it, and someone uses it according to the > terms of the BSD licence, it does not matter HOW they got hold of it, > whether it was included as part of a larger GPL work, a larger > proprietary work, a larger anything work. They are using my work under > the licence I released it as. How can that be breaking the licence? > > Bear in mind, if they got it via a GPL work, the GPL itself says they > got a BSD licence, not a GPL licence. > > And if, as you imply, that file was not my work, then they cannot breach > my licence terms because I HAVE NO RIGHT TO SET ANY SUCH TERMS. THAT IS > *F*O*R*B*I*D*DE*N*. > > > > As a consequence, files obtained via a BSD license will be _effectively_ > > available under the BSD license since pressing the GPL licensing is not > > likely to fly. > > > It is not only unlikely to fly, legally it has as much ability to fly as > a dead duck! > > The GPL itself says that the licence to that code has been obtained from > the original copyright holder: so then (a) if that original licence is > BSD then ALL recipients received a BSD licence not a GPL licence, and > (b) seeing as the licence came from the copyright holder if I am a > third-party to the transaction I have absolutely no rights whatsoever. > > The GPL cannot grant a GPL licence to code where the copyright holder > did not grant a GPL licence. > > > > Legally, however, there is a distinction between authorship/copyright of > > the material and licensing of a particular copy. > > > > > > > it is not GPL, let's assume no-one has modified it. If that file is > > > 100% my BSD-licenced copyright, you changing the copyright notice > > > (even if it's just the date!) is fraudulent misrepresentation. > > > > > > No, it isn't, not least of all because text bytes at the start of the > > file are of no legal consequence as long as they are not declared to be > > part of some interaction. > > > They are of legal consequence if they mislead some third party into > believing something that is not true. > > > > I can write at the start of a file "shoot yourself" and that is not > > legally binding. > > > And if you change the year, you are changing the copyright notice. That > is legally significant. > > > > But changing the BSD licensing notice is against the terms of the BSD > > license. It's one of the few things where BSD without advertising > > clause actually differs significantly from Public Domain. > > > > > > > You yourself said "The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ > > > _whole_", that "whole", legally BEING THE BINARY. Otherwise the GPL > > > truly would be viral, as detractors like to claim, seizing ownership > > > of works that their creators explicitly did NOT place under the GPL. > > > > > > Now you are really going off the rails. I recommend that you read the > > respective FAQs about the GPL. > > > The law trumps FAQs. And if the GPL explicitly says the GPL does not > apply, what relevance does a GPL FAQ have? > > > > > > > (And lastly, when you said that "GNU only requires copyright > > > assignment for EMACS" and something else, I'm very sorry but you > > > clearly did not read what I wrote. You used present tense, I used past > > > tense. If GNU used to require assignment, then a policy of updating > > > the notices every year makes sense. > > > > > > No GNU program requiring a copyright assignment for working on it has > > ceased doing so as far as I know, and no GNU program not requiring a > > copyright assignment for working on it has started requiring one (for > > the record: to integrate AUCTeX into Emacs core as a GNU project, it was > > decided that copyright assignments would be needed in order not to have > > a non-copyright-assigned GNU package for the copyright-assigned GNU > > Emacs. That made it necessary to hunt up all relevant old AUCTeX > > contributors well into the 20th century and get assignments from them, a > > real nuisance: so this was a case where becoming a GNU project > > necessitated assignments after the fact). > > > > > > > But if they DON'T require copyright assignment, and they DON'T own the > > > copyright, then changing the copyright notice smacks of fraud. > > > > > > The FSF does not change copyright notices of projects it is not in > > charge of and I already explained why this statement is both wrong and > > unnecessarily inflammatory. > > > But if you are updating the year, aren't you updating the copyright > notice? So, if a project does not require copyright assignment, aren't > you contradicting yourself? You are changing copyright notices on a > project that you don't own copyright for. > > (Note that when AT&T did that to the Unix source, they effectively > deleted their own copyrights!!!) > > > > > > > Simple as. BUT DOES ANYBODY REALLY CARE? Only the armchair lawyers, I > > > guess :-) > > > > > > I am not sure who you try to denigrate here and for what purpose. > > > > If anyone, myself. (I don't see that it has much real significance. > Other than by believing things that aren't true, people can cause > themselves (and others) problems.) > > > The BIG problem here, is that because projects are EFFECTIVELY licenced > under the GPL, people believe the falsehood that said projects are > LEGALLY licenced under the GPL. > > The magic of the GPL is that - while pretty much every GPL project is a > collective work made of multiple smaller works under a big variety of > licences - it guarantees the collective work can be safely distributed > SO LONG AS you comply with the GPL. > > It does not, CAN not change the licences of the smaller individual works > that make up the greater whole. And it actually EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any > attempt to argue that. > > Which is why, imho, you cannot reasonably update *other* *peoples* > copyright notice. And you most certainly cannot claim the GPL lets you > do so, because the GPL itself explicitly says it does not apply.
Please, very please, everyone. *Stop* discussing this topic on this list. Move the discussion off-list if you want to continue it. (Often this can also reduce heat in the discussion.) This list is about developing LilyPond, not about copyright law. Thank you.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
