License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))
chris at metatrontech.com
Wed Aug 29 21:00:15 UTC 2007
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>> Ok, so if we take my second hypothetical and state that you must
>> identify code which you are only using by permission and don't have
>> copyright claim to (itself), then how is this different?
> Even though you don't have copyright claim for this tweaked BSD code,
> nothing in "tweaked BSD" prevents you from sublicensing under the GPL.
> In effect, you are just preserving the license on those chunks of code
> since you are
>> announcing that they are copyrighted elsewhere and used with permission
>> which has been granted to the public.
> You are making it very clear which parts are tweaked BSD, but that
> doesn't mean tweaked BSD code can't *also* be GPL.
How does the GPL effectively alter what you can do with the code? If it
doesn't alter it, isn't the point moot?
>> In short you are saying, "I don't own this code and cannot control what
>> you do to it. The author has given a public license to the code. See
>> the top of the file for details."
> It might be better if you reply with a full license, since BSD is short
> and you've made so many changes.
Ok, modified based on the OpenSource.Org version:
<OWNER> = Regents of the University of California
<ORGANIZATION> = University of California, Berkeley
<YEAR> = 1998
In the original BSD license, both occurrences of the phrase "COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS" in the disclaimer read "REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS".
Here is the license template:
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Verbatim Redistributions of source code must retain the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
* Modified Redistributions of source code must retain the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following
disclaimer. In addition, they must also identify which sections
of code are unencumbered by copyrights other than the author's and
state that the author has granted this license to those sections
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without specific prior written permission.
<DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY>
>> This is, of course, assuming that the MS-PL does not lay claim to any
>> derivative or collected works and that "the software" means "the
>> accompanying software."
> But this includes "the accompanying software" when it is part of a
> derivative work.
Is the BSDL not in effect for the accompanying software when it is part
of a derivative work? The only difference is that once someone else
starts altering the files, you have no safe way of knowing whether it is
safe or not to use.
>> I am not sure. In this example, perhaps with some slight rewording, I
>> have effectively prevented sublicensing of the code itself
> *No*, you haven't done so effectively. This has to be done clearly,
> either by saying something like, "Sublicensing is not allowed" (GPLv3)
> or "you may do so only under this license" (MS-PL)
Ok. here is my view of the sublicensing issue and why it doesn't apply
in this case. In a literary work, an author may grant a publisher the
right to sublicense the work. This means that the publisher would now
be able to grant additional permissions to third parties. In most
cases, the BSDL code has been released publicly and this license granted
to the public as a whole. In short putting it under the GPL is
redundant and moot (grants no further permissions nor takes away any).
> I can do this without
>> including "only" in the license, and I can do this using *only*
>> attribution requirements and legal notices.
>> The reason is that my specific code is *only* under licenses I grant it
> But you can give permission to sublicense.
Define sublicense. I have effectively prevented any other licenses from
altering exactly what you can do with the code. Is there another
definition of sublicense I should be aware of?
>> The reason is that my code copyrights can't be enforced by those who
>> alter it anyway.
> Correct. I can't enforce copyright on your code; I *can* sublicense it,
> and enforce copyright on my own code in the derivative work.
>> 2) Is this functionally different than the MS-PL (assuming that "the
>> software" only applies to the source code of "the accompanying software"
>> and not to copyrighted elements of that code present after modification).
> Copyright elements of /which/ code present after modification?
Copyrighted original elements of the MS-PL code.
For example, suppose I take MS-PL code and the internals of every
function but leave the overall structure of the code intact (ordering
and selection of each function and which file it belongs to). One might
argue that this is a derivative work because the ordering of the
functions in the code is expressive. Does the MS-PL require that these
elements remain under the MS-PL? Is one required to catalog them? If
interpreted this way, the license could have no differences in effect
from the MS-CL...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss