headers
MJ Ray | 1 Feb 2006 14:48
Gravatar

Re: My concerns about GPLv3 process

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@...>
> Putting documentation and software into the same box doesn't make
> sense, the GFDL makes perfect sense on the other hand in my mind.

Nowadays, lots of software ships with program and docs on the same
media and this is not often called a new or nonsensical development.

> Werner Koch <wk@...>
> [...]  In fact the GFDL hinders development of free documentation.
> 
> Do you have anything to back this up?  GFDLed documentation is free to
> be shared, used, modified, and viewed [...]

Apart from the bit which is slightly off the current topic, but
could be relevant for future topics! If I staple a program to a
dead squirrel and the copyright licence says every copy must be
linked to a dead squirrel, is it free software?

> >  The GFDL has been written with publishers in mind; look at the
> >  terms: most make sense only for woodware.  And later the own
> >  publishing branch ceases work?
> 
> Do you know why it stopped? I don't. [...]

Has it stopped? Anyone got an announcement? I missed it.

>    Have you seen any change on ORA's licenses?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 113 comments |
headers
Sam Liddicott | 1 Feb 2006 15:02

Re: My concerns about GPLv3 process


>So GPL for reference manuals would be fine by you?
>How about tutorials which may have programs derived from it?
>  
>

I had this very question with the documentation on http://linux-net.osd.org/

They changed the license from CC sharealike to CC Attribution-sharealike 
so that the knowledge can be more freely used to derive programs.

Sam
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jan Braunisch | 1 Feb 2006 11:59
Picon

Issues with how the GNU GPL is used for Linux (the kernel)

Greetings

As you will notice, English is not my mother tongue and therefore i apologize 
for my English.
My name is Jan Braunisch. I am a student from Sweden who is a big fan of Free 
Software. Sadly I have not contributed code to any project but i have been 
very active in helping other users of Free Software.

Today I had a discussion in an IRC-channel about the possibilities of Linux 
being released under the coming GNU GPL v3.
I was told that Linux may only be distributed under the GPL v2 and i was told 
to look at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273 where Linus Torvalds explains 
that only GPL v2 may be used.

Because I thought this was very strange I decided to take a look at the source 
code of Linux itself. This is what i discovered:

 * Many of the files (about one third of the .c-files) contained the standard 
text found in most GPL:ed programs and which can be found at the end of the 
GPL as the recommended way of releasing a program under the GPL.

 * Most files had only a copyright notice and nothing about the license used 
for the software.

 * The only thing in the root directory of the kernel source tree containing 
anything about the licensing of the software was the COPYING file, which only 
contained a copy of the GPL v2 along with these notes:

   NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
simo | 1 Feb 2006 15:28
Picon

Re: Issues with how the GNU GPL is used for Linux (the kernel)

On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:59 +0100, Jan Braunisch wrote:
> Greetings
> 
> As you will notice, English is not my mother tongue and therefore i apologize 
> for my English.
> My name is Jan Braunisch. I am a student from Sweden who is a big fan of Free 
> Software. Sadly I have not contributed code to any project but i have been 
> very active in helping other users of Free Software.
> 
> Today I had a discussion in an IRC-channel about the possibilities of Linux 
> being released under the coming GNU GPL v3.
> I was told that Linux may only be distributed under the GPL v2 and i was told 
> to look at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273 where Linus Torvalds explains 
> that only GPL v2 may be used.
> 
> Because I thought this was very strange I decided to take a look at the source 
> code of Linux itself. This is what i discovered:
> 
>  * Many of the files (about one third of the .c-files) contained the standard 
> text found in most GPL:ed programs and which can be found at the end of the 
> GPL as the recommended way of releasing a program under the GPL.
> 
>  * Most files had only a copyright notice and nothing about the license used 
> for the software.
> 
>  * The only thing in the root directory of the kernel source tree containing 
> anything about the licensing of the software was the COPYING file, which only 
> contained a copy of the GPL v2 along with these notes:
> 
>    NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
franz schaefer | 1 Feb 2006 15:21
Picon
Favicon

participation at the european social forum (esf) may 4th-7th 2006

hi.

  from may 4th - 7th 2006 in athens there will be the 4th european social
forum. about 40000 ppl who think that "another world is possible" will meet
there. i am thinking about organizing the following workshop/seminary there:

  * the production of free software as a showcase  for a new type of
    economy: cooperation instead of capitalist competition.

or something along that lines. people who would be interested in
participating there could email me.

greetings from vienna,

mond.

--

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   .                Franz Schaefer         GPG KeyID: CFA2F632
  ..  +43 699 106 14 590 +43 720502048  Fingerprint: 57C2 C0CC
  ...             schaefer@...         6F0A 54C7 0D88 D37E 
    ...          http://www.mond.at/       C17C CB16 CFA2 F632
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Werner Koch | 1 Feb 2006 16:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: My concerns about GPLv3 process

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:48:03 +0000, MJ Ray said:

> Apart from the bit which is slightly off the current topic, but
> could be relevant for future topics! If I staple a program to a
> dead squirrel and the copyright licence says every copy must be
> linked to a dead squirrel, is it free software?

We have seen similar things in the past.  For example the "GPLed"
version of PGP 2 which had two additional restrictions, one was that
the long text file with the crypto political background must accompany
all distributions of PGP.  Clearly that was non-free but something
which can easily be done with the GFDL.

> Has it stopped? Anyone got an announcement? I missed it.

I am not sure whether there has been an announcement but the GNU Press
project is at least dormant since Opus had to leave the FSF.

> Only for limited purposes, which vary from country to country.
> In general, it's not legal to do so.

For example a book on networks might want to include the OOB-Data text
from glibc.  With 48 lines (w/o the example) it is clearly beyond fair
use.

> So GPL for reference manuals would be fine by you?

According to RMS, reference manuals are useless ;-)

Shalom-Salam,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Alfred M. Szmidt | 1 Feb 2006 16:22
Picon
Gravatar

Re: My concerns about GPLv3 process

   > Putting documentation and software into the same box doesn't make
   > sense, the GFDL makes perfect sense on the other hand in my mind.

   Nowadays, lots of software ships with program and docs on the same
   media and this is not often called a new or nonsensical
   development.

You can still apply dual licensing for each part.

   > [...]  In fact the GFDL hinders development of free documentation.
   > 
   > Do you have anything to back this up?  GFDLed documentation is free to
   > be shared, used, modified, and viewed [...]

   Apart from the bit which is slightly off the current topic, but
   could be relevant for future topics! If I staple a program to a
   dead squirrel and the copyright licence says every copy must be
   linked to a dead squirrel, is it free software?

No, since you cannot modify it to your hearts content because it is a
functional work.  But I was speaking about documentation, not
software, different rights apply.  If we do s/software/documentation/
then it would be free documentation.

   > >  The GFDL has been written with publishers in mind; look at the
   > >  terms: most make sense only for woodware.  And later the own
   > >  publishing branch ceases work?
   > 
   > Do you know why it stopped? I don't. [...]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 105 comments |
headers
Alfred M. Szmidt | 1 Feb 2006 16:33
Picon
Gravatar

Re: My concerns about GPLv3 process

   We have seen similar things in the past.  For example the "GPLed"
   version of PGP 2 which had two additional restrictions, one was
   that the long text file with the crypto political background must
   accompany all distributions of PGP.  Clearly that was non-free but
   something which can easily be done with the GFDL.

Because PGP was software, not documentation.  Such a clause would be
prefectly ok for free documentation.

   For example a book on networks might want to include the OOB-Data
   text from glibc.  With 48 lines (w/o the example) it is clearly
   beyond fair use.

You can ask the FSF to make a execption for examples.  This makes
sense, and I doubt anyone would object.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
simo | 1 Feb 2006 16:51
Picon

Re: Issues with how the GNU GPL is used for Linux (the kernel)

On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 16:44 +0100, Jan Braunisch wrote:
> > > If the code is Free Software under the GPL, may I only use GPL v2 as
> > > Linus says or am i allowed to use any version of the GPL if i want to
> > > redistribute it, according to "If the Program does not specify a version
> > > number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the
> > > Free Software Foundation." under section 9 of the GPL.
> >
> > No, the Authors clearly stated that only v2 applies for the kernel as a
> > whole, again single files may be under a different license (GPL
> > compatible), and so, some of them may be under a GPL version that allow
> > them to be used with the future GPLv3 license. Again to determine it you
> > should really contact the authors of the files and ask them.
> 
> What if I take the kernel from before that notice was added?
> Then there would be nothing at all specifying that only the GPL v2 should be 
> used.

It really depends on what's written on the COPYING file before that, I'm
not sure.

> I also would also like to poit out that the GPL under section 0 says:
> 
> This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice 
> placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms 
> of this General Public License.
> 
> Such a notice is not present for most of the files in the kernel sorce.

Yes, but I think it is safe to assume they are under the GPL as well, or
otherwise they would not be redistributable.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sam Liddicott | 1 Feb 2006 16:58

Re: Issues with how the GNU GPL is used for Linux (the kernel)

simo wrote:

>
>I suppose, he would be able to change only it's own code, other
>developers would need to agree to change their own.
>And before you ask, it is an all or nothing, as the GPLv3 draft is
>incompatible with GPLv2.
>  
>

It's nearly all or nothing, kernel developers can choose to license 
under gpl 2 or later.

Of course the whole kernel can then be distributed under 2, until they 
all say 2 or later at which point some can say 3 or later and make the 
switch.

Sam
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane