[License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)

[Lawrence Rosen]

Bradley Kuhn wrote:
> Finally, I'm unlikely to respond to this thread further as I think the 
> use of slurs like "infect" (notwithstanding the quotes, and '?') to refer
> to copyleft are just unnecessarily inflammatory.  I've asked you not to
> talk about copyleft using slur words so many times before in the 
> thirteen years we've known each other, it's really hard for me to
> believe you aren't saying "infect" intentionally just to spread needless
> discord.


Bradley, 

The fear that *you* sow is infectious, not the GPL. I do not slur that
license and certainly not "copyleft"!!! Indeed, I have argued at length here
and elsewhere [1] that fear of the GPL is unwarranted. It is instead the
fear that companies will be challenged by aggressive folks suing on some
bogus "derivative work theory" that infects our community.

To revert to the subject of this thread: The GPL should clearly be on every
FOSS license chooser. But don't leave licenses off those license choosers
simply because they are deemed "incompatible" under those false derivative
work enforcement theories or some generalized fear of "license
proliferation".

Here's what I suggest for license choosers:  

(1) Ask first whether the developer is intending to integrate his or her
software most with Eclipse, Apache, Linux, Mozilla or other specific current
FOSS projects. 

(2) Recommend that FOSS project's license (with appropriate IANAL caveats!).

(3) Otherwise, consult a lawyer before choosing a license on your own.

(4) Invent a new license only as a very last resort and only when justified
by something missing in all other approved licenses.

/Larry

[1] In 2005 I published this: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch06.pdf.
See also my antique 2001 article on the topic of "GPL infection":
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.pdf 



-----Original Message-----
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bkuhn at ebb.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:00 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)

Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday:
> I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of 
> copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't 
> evidence.

License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets and
threads about licensing on lots of projects.  I don't have a saved file of
evidence to hand you, mostly because it's such an unremarkable occurrence
that I don't note it down when it happens.  I see it at least once a month
somewhere.  I suspect anyone who follows Free Software development regularly
sees it just as much.  I can tell you that I dealt with two issues of
license incompatibility in my day job recently, but I can't disclose the
specifics since it was confidential advice.

Meanwhile, if you need evidence to satisfy your curiosity right away, I'd
suggest debian-legal archives would be a good place to start your research
on this, but...

> Awaiting your evidence to the contrary....

... I can't spare the time to do this basic research for you.  If anyone
else here does agree with you that license incompatibility isn't a problem
in the real world, then perhaps it's worth continuing this thread, but I
suspect you may be alone on this one. :)

> Most FOSS licenses (including the GPL!)  don't actually define the 
> term "derivative work" with enough precision to make it meaningful for 
> court interpretation. ...  The court will therefore use the statutory 
> and case law to determine that situation.

That's as it should be.  It's not the job (nor is it really appropriate) for
a copyright license to define statutory terms, so the GPL doesn't do that.
The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate
software freedom.  That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I
heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not
sure who deserves credit) call "copyleft's judo move on copyright".  It's
the essence of strong copyleft.

> all major FOSS licenses that I'm aware of *except the GPL* make it 
> abundantly clear that the mere combination of that licensed software 
> with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect ("infect"?) the 
> other software.

Indeed, weaker copylefts give guidelines for certain derivative works that
can be proprietarized, and the rest are left under copyleft.

BTW, if you are interested in how the European lawyers view this question, I
refer you to an excellent talk by Till Jaeger at FOSDEM 2013:
   http://www.faif.us/cast/2013/mar/26/0x39/

> So what's the worry about license incompatibility all about?  Is it 
> merely that so many licenses are deemed incompatible with the GPL,

Many licenses are incompatible with the Eclipse Public License, too, since
it's a stronger copyleft than, say, the MPL or LGPL.  There aren't very many
strong copylefts around.

> with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect ("infect"?) the 
> other software.

Finally, I'm unlikely to respond to this thread further as I think the use
of slurs like "infect" (notwithstanding the quotes, and '?') to refer to
copyleft are just unnecessarily inflammatory.  I've asked you not to talk
about copyleft using slur words so many times before in the thirteen years
we've known each other, it's really hard for me to believe you aren't saying
"infect" intentionally just to spread needless discord.
-- 
   -- bkuhn
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss