Re: [Notion-devel] Licensing questions (was: Re: Is any of the notion@sf.net admins around?)

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 09:59 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: 
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:57:04AM +0200, M Rawash wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 19:53 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:38:58AM +0200, M Rawash wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote:
> > > > > > I'd suggest that we have a separate license file (let's say 
> > > > > > LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's made-up 
> > > > > > license this way we will at least look like we're trying to
> > > > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing
> > > > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!)
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even
> > > > > though you might not like it.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever
> > > > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the
> > > > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
> > > 
> > > I don't think this is accurate.
> > > 
> > > The section of the FAQ you quote applies to distributing *modified* versions 
> > > of the LGPL text: for example, actually changing some of the terms and 
> > > wordings of the license text.
> > > 
> > > What Tuomov did, instead, is including the 'official' unmodified LGPL 
> > > verbatim, and stating his additional terms separately. Afaics this is OK.
> > 
> > Well, not exactly, Tuomo _did_ modify the LGPL (in addition to "stating
> > his additional terms separately"), by both changing the meaning and
> > implication of some words (i.e. "this license") and omitting entire
> > sections (i.e. "Sections 3 and 13"). whether this actually counts as a
> > modification (with legal implications) or Tuomo was simply exploiting a
> > loophole in the way the (L)GPL is copyrighted, is debatable, and that's
> > why i said it was an "abuse" of the LGPL, rather than outright illegal.
> 
> I don't really think this is a loophole or 'abuse'.

um, ok?


> > On the other hand, Tuomo clearly states that this is a "modified"
> > version of the LGPL in the first paragraph of the license itself: 
> > 
> > "[...]this software is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public
> > License, version 2.1 ("LGPL", reproduced below), extended and
> > __modified__ with the following terms[...]"
> > 
> > i rest my case :)
> 
> I still feel this is a different kind of 'modification' than is meant in the
> FAQ. The restrictions in the FAQ mostly seem to be intended to prevent 
> mis-representing something that isn't LGPL as LGPL.We/Tuomov clearly don't
> do/does that.

I'm not sure where you got that they are merely talking about the (L)GPL
text here, but i hope you can explain away this answer too:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary


> > > > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that 
> > > > contradict what you just said?
> > > 
> > > It's not entirely clear to me whether it'd be legal to directly mix code that's
> > > under the LGPL and code that's under the 'LGPL-extended'.
> > 
> > From my understanding of both the LGPL (including Tuomo's "extended"
> > version) and the the FSF "gpl-faq", i'd say it's OK to mix differently
> > licensed code (in this particular case) as long as the 'whole' work is
> > licensed under the original license (i.e. Tuomo's "extended" license),
> > read Section 2 of the LGPL.
> 
> I'm not so sure we wouldn't be violating contributors' rights by relicensing
> their LGPL'ed code under the 'extended' version.

we're not really 'relicensing' anything, all copyright notices and
individual license files will remain intact (as per Section 1 of the
LGPL). The 'whole' (in this particular case) will be considered a "work
that uses the Library" (as per Section 5 of the LGPL), thus only subject
to Section 6 of the LGPL where applicable.

> Though it *might* be legal, 
> in any case it seems like good form to explicitly ask them if they're OK with
> it.

+1

> > This, btw, also means, that we can *never* change the way notion will be
> >  licensed, even if 99% of the code was no longer Tuomo's, as it will
> > always be considered a "derived work".
> 
> Seems likely.
> 
> > > To be on the safe side, I think we should simply ask contributors to 
> > > dual-license their contributions (so they're available under both the LGPL and
> > > the 'LGPL-extended'), and indicate this in the respective source files.
> > 
> > Well, i would have been for this, if Tuomo hadn't included a copyright
> > notice at the top of his extended license (which we cannot modify!), I
> > guess this means that by referring to 'that' license we are
> > unequivocally transferring all copyrights to "Tuomo Valkonen"!
> 
> Copyright assignment isn't an issue here - every author keeps the copyright on
> his code, even if the code is (also) released under Tuomov's license. 

yah, i just realised that it's not even part of 'the license' (which
means we can modify or even remove it), disregard that...

> > We should definitely have this talk now, rather than later, i hope more
> > people can get in on this.
> 
> It seems most of our problems are 'practical' questions (about what we can/must
> legally do) rather than 'fundamental' questions. Perhaps we should just ask the
> GNU legal team to clarify things? I'd be willing to prepare a mail explaining 
> the situation. If I remember correctly they have a mailing list for this kind 
> of thing.

that would be great, thank you.


regards,
M Rawash