[OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[Richard Fontana]

Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>
> It is a weird set of doublethink to turn BSDL
> from additional permissions to additional restrictions vis a vis the
> GPL because you aren't allowed to remove the text that grants you
> permission to use the code.

It's not doublethink; it's a fact that this license requirement is
external to the GPL and different from the requirements of the GPL.
It's "additional" in that literal sense (and it's a restriction).

> However, restriction or not, it would
> seem that the preservation of the license notice could be
> seen/misinterpreted to fall under the ability to "add a restriction"
> via section 7b "Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal
> notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate
> Legal Notices displayed by works containing it"

That's precisely right. 7b is one part of the formal basis for
compatibility of BSDL with GPLv3, along with 7a and 7d.

> which could then
> be read/misinterpreted by a layperson (a.k.a. programmer) as removable
> via
>
> "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it,
> contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along
> with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."

No, because section 7 explicitly says

 All *other* non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
 restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.

(Emphasis added; "other" means other than that enumerated 7a-7f list of
allowed categories of additional restriction).

There's another issue here, which is how to interpret that novel clause
authorizing removability of "further restrictions".  This was meant to
apply to the special case of GPL license notices that incorporate
restrictions that contradict the permissions of the GPL in fairly
straightforward ways (e.g. "Licensed for non-commercial use under the
GPL" or "Licensed under the GPL; military use prohibited"). The earlier
drafts of that clause were arguably susceptible to a broader
interpretation, which is why it was narrowed in the later drafts to make
clear that it specifically applies to what purport to be GPL license
notices.

> Given the PySoy GPL V3 weirdness with Section 7 I'd say that
> particular section is subject to discussion/confusion/excessive
> silliness.  I'm going to guess PySoy's implementation of Section 7
> exceeds the "intended reading" of Section 7 and stumbled into the
> realm of logoware.  IANAL, etc.

I'm not too familiar with this case, and TINLA, but I think you are
correct in your second sentence, although I'd like to think that the
PySoy developers' intentions were good.  A "GPLv3 logo" is certainly not
a reasonable legal notice (customarily one does not use logos to provide
the information contained in legal notices, such as the applicable
license terms). 7b author attributions are intended to encompass certain
limited kinds of logo preservation requirements (and actually OSI
discussions about the limits of "badgeware" influenced much of the
thinking here), but it's not clear to me that the PySoy logo is an
author attribution (PySoy does not seem to be an "author", unless I'm
mistaken).

> From the perspective of a coder
> it's odd in the context of a software license that someone would argue
> on how something was "intended to be read" given that our trade
> instills a certain affinity for preciseness in statements because a
> compiler doesn't care what you intended.  Just what you typed.

I understand and sympathize with this view, but software licenses,
whether simple or complex, cannot achieve that sort of precision.  There
will always be unclear or undetermined issues of interpretation no
matter how carefully you try to draft any legal instrument.