inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial exception" [1]. however, it is unclear whether this license allows us to distribute the software in "non-free", or whether the contradictory nature renders the entire license void (and thus un-distributable by us). i haven't contacted upstream yet, but i am under the impression that they won't change the "commercial exception" (they have been defending it since 2002). i will however contact them to ask them for at least an alternate license that would fit their needs (e.g. prohibit commercial use) but would also allow us to distribute it (in non-free). any suggestions about which license i should suggest? (no i don't like this idea very much either; i'm just trying to be realistic). gmsdr IOhannes [1] https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a > somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial > exception" [1]. > > [1] https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception For discussion, the text in question from the linuxsampler website reads: [*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the subject, that are not yet covered by the FAQ, please contact us. I think this is more a *prohibition* (something permitted by the GPL, use for any purposes, is prohibited) than an *exception*. The page also says that a mandatory dependency of LinuxSampler, libgig, is licensed under GPL without prohibition. In my opinion: - GPL with additional use prohibition is not DFSG-compatible - GPL with additional use prohibition is not GPL-compatible As a consequence of the second item, I believe LinuxSampler is not distributable at all, since it works only by linking GPL-compatible and GPL-incompatible code together into a single work, so I don't believe that LinuxSampler can be distributed even in the non-free archive. Jeff
Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
hi, thanks for the quick reply. On 09/29/2015 06:58 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) > wrote: >> i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a >> somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial >> exception" [1]. >> >> [1] https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception > > For discussion, the text in question from the linuxsampler website reads: > > [*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that > USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL > HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written > permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the > subject, that are not yet covered by the FAQ, please contact us. > > I think this is more a *prohibition* (something permitted by the GPL, > use for any purposes, is prohibited) than an *exception*. > > The page also says that a mandatory dependency of LinuxSampler, libgig, > is licensed under GPL without prohibition. > > In my opinion: > - GPL with additional use prohibition is not DFSG-compatible > - GPL with additional use prohibition is not GPL-compatible > > As a consequence of the second item, I believe LinuxSampler is not > distributable at all, since it works only by linking GPL-compatible and > GPL-incompatible code together into a single work, so I don't believe > that LinuxSampler can be distributed even in the non-free archive. hmm, the upstream authors doubt that, arguing that they as the authors of libgig are allowed to do so. https://www.linuxsampler.org/faq.html#ls_breaking_libgig_license but i guess there argument only holds, as long as *they* distribute the combined binaries (and not a 3rd party like Debian). anyhow, if the use of libgig is the only problem, then i think it can be solved rather easily (e.g. the upstream authors adding an explicit exception to the license of libgig, that allows its use in linuxsampler) (btw, i also think that your wording is a bit unfortunate: there is nothing in the world that a priori prohibits linking *GPL-compatible* and *GPL-incompatible* code; LGPL and BSD-3-clause are all *compatible* and allow linking with proprietary code) gmrdsa IOhannes PS: thanks for keeping me (and pkg-multimedia) in the loop, as I'm not subscibed to debian-legal. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
On 09/29/2015 06:58 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > As a consequence of the second item, I believe LinuxSampler is not > distributable at all alessio brought to my attention that the license of LinuxSampler was already discussed on debian-legal 10 years ago, and it seems that they came to a similar conclusion: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00331.html mgfsadr IOhannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
Jeff Epler writes: > For discussion, the text in question from the linuxsampler website reads: > > [*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that > USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL > HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written > permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the > subject, that are not yet covered by the FAQ, please contact us. > > I think this is more a *prohibition* (something permitted by the GPL, > use for any purposes, is prohibited) than an *exception*. Yes, that is clearly what the GPL calls an “additional restriction” on the recipient's exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by the GPL. GPLv2 §6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. > The page also says that a mandatory dependency of LinuxSampler, libgig, > is licensed under GPL without prohibition. If LinuxSampler is deemed (hypothetically in the future by a ruling in a copyright suit) to be a derived work of libgig, then distribution of LinuxSampler is subject to the GPL on libgig. The same is true of any other GPL-licensed work from which LinuxSampler is derived: if it is distributed, that distribution must conform to the terms of the GPL. In that case — which I believe is the case here — then distributing LinuxSampler with additional restrictions in the license terms is a violation of the license they have to distribute the work at all. > In my opinion: > - GPL with additional use prohibition is not DFSG-compatible > - GPL with additional use prohibition is not GPL-compatible As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from the terms when they redistribute the work. So one possible way to improve this situation is to correspond with the copyright holders in each of the works on which LinuxSampler depends, and encourage them to release new versions under GPLv3-or-later. Then LinuxSampler's copyright holders would be faced with the choice to have their imposition of additional restrictions neutered, or never gain the benefits of upgrading the dependency. -- \ “Come on Milhouse, there’s no such thing as a soul! It’s just | `\ something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogie Man or | _o__) Michael Jackson.” —Bart, _The Simpsons_ | Ben Finney
Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:18:41AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause > (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore > the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from > the terms when they redistribute the work. > > So one possible way to improve this situation is to correspond with the > copyright holders in each of the works on which LinuxSampler depends, > and encourage them to release new versions under GPLv3-or-later. > > Then LinuxSampler's copyright holders would be faced with the choice to > have their imposition of additional restrictions neutered, or never gain > the benefits of upgrading the dependency. I was unaware of this detail of the GPLv3 license. The first source file that I looked at in linuxsampler's svn trunk, src/linuxsampler.cpp, has the "any later version" clause enabled. Jeff
