Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > *Sigh*.  OK, now I get it.  W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
> > one each to two different parties.  The terms of *both* must
> > be followed by Person C.
> >
> > My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
> > W+X or W' are under the GPL, it's really "GPL to Person B
> > plus AFL to Person A." It appears to be Stallman's opinion,
> > and it would be mine as well, that this cannot be the case,
> > as the GPL prevents "additional restrictions", without a
> > qualifier as to which party those restrictions are enforced by.
>
> I'm sorry, Brian, I just don't view these things as "additional
> restrictions" -- yet another example of vagueness in the GPL.

They are clauses I need to be aware of because they affect my ability to
use the code.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I'm
not sure what else to say that would convince you.

> Regardless, the explicit exclusion of a trademark license and the mutual
> defense provision are not going to disappear from the AFL.

And I wouldn't want them to.  I think they're fine, and I think if
anything the GPLv3 should be amended to allow these kinds of things, if
not pick them up itself.

> You keep worrying about the downstream licensee, but let's think about
> his concerns more carefully.  Why should he care, for the most part,
> about the AFL-licensed component?  By law he cannot use the
> AFL-licensor's trademarks anyway, so as a practical matter who cares
> whether he's actually read the AFL license.  As for the mutual defense
> provision, if he's planning to sue for patent infringement he would be
> well-advised to write a cease-and-desist letter first and understand the
> risks of suing against open source software that very well might have
> been incorporated into his own company's infrastructure by now.  I
> simply don't care about him and our community owes him no consideration
> whatsoever.

Regardless of someone's intent, Larry, they are owed the honesty of being
told when a license applies to them.  The AFL applies to this downstream
licensee.  To say "it's not important, because it only matters when they
try and do this evil thing" reeeeally makes me queasy.  Of course it's
important, especially if they were led to believe that the GPL described
all the conditions under which they were allowed to use and redistribute
the code.

If a client came to you, Larry, and told you they wanted to sue a
particular company for patent infringement, would you typically recommend
to them that they audit the source code of all the software they used in
their organization, to make sure this company didn't plant any Mutual
Defense clauses in components of that software?  Imagine yourself as
someone unaware of the existance of the AFL.

If your answer is "well of course, any entity should already be completely
aware of the licenses on the software they use", you've made my point.

	Brian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3