On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: >> In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license >> (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual >> part. > Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or > linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. GPLv2 section 2 says: (emphasis mine) the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose *permissions* for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and *thus* to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a consequence of this. Section 6 says: 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. IOW, you get the GPL permissions by receiving the program, and upstream distributors can't have restricted any of these permissions. I don't see anything that would stop any of them from granting additional permissions over their own contributions. They can't grant additional permissions over others' contributions, because copyright law prevents that in the absence of explicit permission from the copyright holder. Now, back to section 2, and your favorite 2b. It says that you may modify the program and distribute modified versions of the program under this license, as long as you (among other things) grant the same permissions, subject to the same conditions, to recipients of the modified program and derived versions thereof. Again, it doesn't say you can't grant additional permissions. It doesn't say you have to impose restrictions that stop others from enjoying additional permissions you might have gotten yourself. It doesn't say you can't enjoy any additional permissions you got yourself. Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? "You may breathe in, as long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" Some possible responses: - No, I don't agree. I don't need to agree with it to keep on breathing. - Yes, I may. I have other permissions to breathe, but if they're all revoked, it will be nice to have this one. - Yes, I do agree. It's no big deal, and if I ever need to breathe in without breathing out, I can always use the other permissions I have. - Why, sure, and thanks! I was losing my breath already, all my other permissions to breathe had been revoked! Thanks for saving my life! And so nicely! I don't mind the requirement to "breathe out" at all, it's just reasonable! Of course you understand that I can still accept other permissions that are not subject to this condition, and that if I do, I'll then be entitled to breathe in without breathing out. My lawyer says so, and I have no doubt so does yours. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
