You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> on 2004/03/01 01:55:01 UTC
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 03:50:59PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> The ASF never considered the 1.1 license to be ASF-incompatible in
> practice. That is to say, no one has ever been sued by the ASF, or even
> asked to stop, for including Apache software inside a GPL release.
>
> Likewise, CollabNet will never sue someone for doing the same thing. Our
> intent for the license is to give *everyone* the ability to include it in
> their works, with minimal notification and liability exemption required.
I realize this hasn't been an issue in practice. But I'd be more
concerned about the reverse. Some GPL author complaining when his work
was combined with subversion licensed code.
> We'd like to update it to the Apache 2.0 license, which is even more
> explicitly compatible with the GPL, despite the FSF's opinion on this
> front. The ASF and the FSF are resolving their last question on this
> front. This is not an algorithmic thing, as it depends on how courts are
> likely to interpret patent language. But, again, the ASF's intent is to
> allow anyone to combine AL-2.0 code with GPL code and distribute it under
> the GPL. That would be ours as well.
I think the jury is still out on the FSF's position on the AL-2.0. The
ASF makes a compelling case for GPL compatibility. The FSF hasn't
officially responded (despite a comment on their website suggesting that
it wasn't compatible).
Additionally, unlike the ASF, you are a commercial business. The
ownership of your copyright might be sold. Your intentions go a long
way. But only as long as you still own the copyrights. If your
business goes under and the copyrights are liquidated who knows what the
new buyer will do with them.
Your statements here do go a long way to creating an estoppel defense
for anyone sued by your successors, if any, for such a claim.
While I make these comments, I'll add that I'm not overly concerned with
the license. If I was I wouldn't have contributed to the project.
Thanks for your response on this issue. It goes a long way towards
dispelling the fears that some might have about this license.
Thanks for licensing your work under an open source license! :)
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
Posted by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>.
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:21:14PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> While I obviously can't speak for CollabNet, my hunch is that their policy
> might be the same as the ASF: GPL code won't be included in Subversion.
> So, the combining can only be a one way street: a GPL author including
> Subversion in their product not the other way around.
The combiner doesn't have to be the owner of either copyright. It could
be a person that simply wants some functionality that GPL liensed code
provides and includes it without being fully aware of the complications.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:55 PM -0800 Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
> I realize this hasn't been an issue in practice. But I'd be more
> concerned about the reverse. Some GPL author complaining when his work
> was combined with subversion licensed code.
While I obviously can't speak for CollabNet, my hunch is that their policy
might be the same as the ASF: GPL code won't be included in Subversion. So,
the combining can only be a one way street: a GPL author including Subversion
in their product not the other way around. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
Posted by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>.
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:00:08PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
v> You're really splitting hairs here, and I think you've pointed out a
> distinction without a difference. Sure, you could have a different
> license, with all the same terms as the GPL, but was called "Ben's Public
> License". Then, yes, you could combine GPL'd software with other
> GPL-compatible code and release it under your BPL. But your BPL is just a
> restating of the GPL; I suppose it could have other terms that don't
> "conflict", but that would mean nothing but additional rights or neutral
> statements like "sunsets are cool."
I suppose you have a point to some extent, the GPL can be difficult to
wrap your head around sometimes. But we do already have GPL compatable
licenses. But this is really beside the point here.
> > I think your position is based on the presumption that any combination
> > of your code and GPL code would be automatically relicensed under the
> > GPL and that as long as you don't complain that there wouldn't be a
> > problem.
>
> That's essentially it, yes.
>
> > If this is true that you won't complain if there is such a combination,
> > why have the clause(s) in there at all that makes it GPL incompatible? Why
> > not simply use something like a 3 clause BSD license.
>
> Because we think asking people to give proper credit is important.
Fair enough.
> > Or is it that you simply want that clause in there for the situations
> > where the code is relicensed under proprietary licenses? If this is a
> > case a dual GPL, Apache 1.1 based license may serve everyones purposes,
> > provided that we can get all future contributors to agree to
> > dual-license their works.
>
> Dual licenses encourage developers to fork, or to give you contributions
> back "but only under the terms of the GPL". I don't wish to play games
> like that, thanks. Furthermore it perpetuates the myth that the FSF is
> the only entity allowed to interpret the GPL.
I don't see how a dual license encourages a fork anymore than any other
license that permits one. Your comment is especially odd in my view
because you've selected a license to be sure that commercial forks were
permitted. So why are you worried about forks?
Then to add to that you're saying that if someone combined your software
and GPL'ed software you'd consider the entire combination to be licensed
under the GPL and you wouldn't have a problem with this. As a result
I'd say you are in essence already GPL licensed.
I also don't see how it prepetuates any myth about the FSF interpretting
the GPL. It just serves to make explicit what you've pretty much
already said.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
Licensing discussions get tedious really quickly...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:00:58AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > That absolutely, positively is not possible to do. It's not a goal of the
> > Subversion license to allow GPL code to be covered by it - that would not
> > be possible with any license other than the GPL. "Compatibility with the
> > GPL" entirely means software under a license that allows it to be combined
> > with other GPL software, the whole of which is distributed under the GPL.
>
> Not really. If this was true there wouldn't be any such thing as a
> GPL-compatible license. GPL 2b says:
>
> "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
> in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
> of this License."
>
> Note the important phrasing of "under the terms of this License" as
> opposed to "under this License." This permits the use of other licenses
> provided that they do not have terms that conflict with the GPL.
You're really splitting hairs here, and I think you've pointed out a
distinction without a difference. Sure, you could have a different
license, with all the same terms as the GPL, but was called "Ben's Public
License". Then, yes, you could combine GPL'd software with other
GPL-compatible code and release it under your BPL. But your BPL is just a
restating of the GPL; I suppose it could have other terms that don't
"conflict", but that would mean nothing but additional rights or neutral
statements like "sunsets are cool."
> I think your position is based on the presumption that any combination
> of your code and GPL code would be automatically relicensed under the
> GPL and that as long as you don't complain that there wouldn't be a
> problem.
That's essentially it, yes.
> If this is true that you won't complain if there is such a combination,
> why have the clause(s) in there at all that makes it GPL incompatible? Why
> not simply use something like a 3 clause BSD license.
Because we think asking people to give proper credit is important.
> Or is it that you simply want that clause in there for the situations
> where the code is relicensed under proprietary licenses? If this is a
> case a dual GPL, Apache 1.1 based license may serve everyones purposes,
> provided that we can get all future contributors to agree to
> dual-license their works.
Dual licenses encourage developers to fork, or to give you contributions
back "but only under the terms of the GPL". I don't wish to play games
like that, thanks. Furthermore it perpetuates the myth that the FSF is
the only entity allowed to interpret the GPL.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
Posted by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>.
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:00:58AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> That absolutely, positively is not possible to do. It's not a goal of the
> Subversion license to allow GPL code to be covered by it - that would not
> be possible with any license other than the GPL. "Compatibility with the
> GPL" entirely means software under a license that allows it to be combined
> with other GPL software, the whole of which is distributed under the GPL.
Not really. If this was true there wouldn't be any such thing as a
GPL-compatible license. GPL 2b says:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
of this License."
Note the important phrasing of "under the terms of this License" as
opposed to "under this License." This permits the use of other licenses
provided that they do not have terms that conflict with the GPL.
I think your position is based on the presumption that any combination
of your code and GPL code would be automatically relicensed under the
GPL and that as long as you don't complain that there wouldn't be a
problem.
If this is true that you won't complain if there is such a combination,
why have the clause(s) in there at all that makes it GPL incompatible? Why
not simply use something like a 3 clause BSD license.
Or is it that you simply want that clause in there for the situations
where the code is relicensed under proprietary licenses? If this is a
case a dual GPL, Apache 1.1 based license may serve everyones purposes,
provided that we can get all future contributors to agree to
dual-license their works.
> Of course; but the copyright license can not be revoked. Further, if say
> Microsoft buys CollabNet and decides to sue people who've included
> Subversion code into a GPL'd program, they'd have to account for our
> past messages about the interpretation of the license as being
> GPL-compatible, and the court would look at that and likely throw their
> suit out.
Presuming that the case actually got to court. But what if the person
or persons your potential successor (I don't like using real company
names as hypothetical person, especially when the name carries a huge
load of nasty intent along with it) goes after doesn't have the
resources to defend such a claim?
If your intent is to permit GPL combinations it is far better to simply
license things in a way that permits that explicitly then rely on
estoppel to get around the issue for you.
An explicit license is hard to argue against, avoids the confusion in
the community about the issue, and gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling.
:)
> Note that there's no particular reason, as far as CollabNet is concerned,
> to be the copyright holder on the code. We have always thought that in
> the long run, this code base (and perhaps others at tigris.org) would be
> transferred to some sort of non-profit entity that would defend it when
> necessary and act as a shield for the developers - just like the ASF.
> We've not pushed this because there's been lots of other things to worry
> about; and to do this right we'd want to start collecting Contributor
> Licensing Agreements like the ASF does, and the question of how such an
> organization is structured would need to be figured out... etc. But we'd
> like to do this at some point, and probably should do this soon.
That would be an improvement. But I think making your license do what
you really intend it to do is a far more pressing concern.
Understand, I'm not pressing you to relicense your work under the GPL or
even in a GPL-compatible way. I believe you are free to license your
work in any way you please within the framework that copyright law
provides.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: What license should I use when including code from subversion?
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 03:50:59PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > The ASF never considered the 1.1 license to be ASF-incompatible in
> > practice. That is to say, no one has ever been sued by the ASF, or even
> > asked to stop, for including Apache software inside a GPL release.
> >
> > Likewise, CollabNet will never sue someone for doing the same thing. Our
> > intent for the license is to give *everyone* the ability to include it in
> > their works, with minimal notification and liability exemption required.
>
> I realize this hasn't been an issue in practice. But I'd be more
> concerned about the reverse. Some GPL author complaining when his work
> was combined with subversion licensed code.
That absolutely, positively is not possible to do. It's not a goal of the
Subversion license to allow GPL code to be covered by it - that would not
be possible with any license other than the GPL. "Compatibility with the
GPL" entirely means software under a license that allows it to be combined
with other GPL software, the whole of which is distributed under the GPL.
> I think the jury is still out on the FSF's position on the AL-2.0.
The "jury", being Roy Fielding and Eben Moglen, are still discussing the
issue privately. Eben's position, and is seems RMS's as well, is that the
patent provisions (the only sticking point) are not a bad thing, and that
our language will (almost certainly) be compatible with whatever is in the
next version of the GPL. The question is whether it's compatible today,
and rests on a fairly complicated understanding of patent law and a guess,
really, at how courts will interpret some of the language.
> Additionally, unlike the ASF, you are a commercial business. The
> ownership of your copyright might be sold. Your intentions go a long
> way. But only as long as you still own the copyrights. If your
> business goes under and the copyrights are liquidated who knows what the
> new buyer will do with them.
Of course; but the copyright license can not be revoked. Further, if say
Microsoft buys CollabNet and decides to sue people who've included
Subversion code into a GPL'd program, they'd have to account for our
past messages about the interpretation of the license as being
GPL-compatible, and the court would look at that and likely throw their
suit out.
> Your statements here do go a long way to creating an estoppel defense
> for anyone sued by your successors, if any, for such a claim.
Precisely.
Note that there's no particular reason, as far as CollabNet is concerned,
to be the copyright holder on the code. We have always thought that in
the long run, this code base (and perhaps others at tigris.org) would be
transferred to some sort of non-profit entity that would defend it when
necessary and act as a shield for the developers - just like the ASF.
We've not pushed this because there's been lots of other things to worry
about; and to do this right we'd want to start collecting Contributor
Licensing Agreements like the ASF does, and the question of how such an
organization is structured would need to be figured out... etc. But we'd
like to do this at some point, and probably should do this soon.
> While I make these comments, I'll add that I'm not overly concerned with
> the license. If I was I wouldn't have contributed to the project.
> Thanks for your response on this issue. It goes a long way towards
> dispelling the fears that some might have about this license.
Cool :)
> Thanks for licensing your work under an open source license! :)
Trust me when I say, it's our distinct pleasure to be able to.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org