[License-review] Sublicensing

[Engel Nyst]

Oh, of course. Thank you for presenting all the scenario so clearly. It
shows exactly the understanding of BSD in open source projects, and it's
IMHO relevant for the discussion of this new license.

Lets say BSD in this case was UPL. A made Awork and published it under
UPL. Then, your scenario becomes:

On 09/18/2014 03:30 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Now, of course, Bwork and Cwork are GPL. The binary distribution of
> Cwork is also GPL, and the source code of Bwork and Cwork that come
> with the binary distribution of Cwork are also GPL, obviously.
>
> Not so much with the Awork that is part of the source code of Cwork
> that comes come with the binary distribution of Cwork. After all,
> neither B nor C have the right to simply change Awork’s licence.

C changes Awork's license. In order to do that, C copies Awork, complies
with the notice requirement, and then he distributes Awork under other
terms. That's all he has to do to simply change Awork's license.

> The point here is that the BSD-style licence of Awork allows
> redistribution in a GPL environment with its broad licence grant,
> but that does not mean it’s suddenly become GPL-licenced itself.

If the license is UPL, then it allows the license to be changed, by
distribution in a GPL (or arbitrary other) environment. Instead of its
broad license grant, it means that it's suddenly become GPL-licensed itself.

> The opinion of the community here is that in this case, even if
> Cwork contains a patched version of Awork, that the code C added to
> Awork′ is normally available under Awork’s licence unless new files
> are added. By law, everything that C creates that is copyrightable is
> his to licence, so C *could* distribute Awork′ under GPL iff he
> added enough to it to have claims to copyright for it, but we don’t
> normally do that.

If the license is UPL, then C doesn't need to add copyrightable code in
order to change Awork's license for any file, even in source form. C has
the power to just change UPL, by simply distributing what was
UPL-licensed code 'under other terms'.

Awork and Awork' are only licensed under GPL for the recipients of these
works from C.

> But this all s̲t̲i̲l̲l̲ means it’s not possible for anyone to just
> distribute Awork (not Awork′) under GPL. Well, it’s distribu‐ ted
> under GPL as part of Cwork, but everyone receiving source of Cwork
> can just use the parts of Awork under BSD.

Parts of Awork under UPL no longer exist. They *were* under UPL, until C
decided to change it. In the new source distribution, everyone receiving
source from C *cannot* just use the parts of Awork under UPL.

Lets say D receives the whole source distribution, from C. Awork's code
could even be entirely unchanged (C simply added glue code, they didn't
necessarily change Awork code). But D cannot exercise their rights under
UPL while complying with UPL conditions.

D can look at the files they received, and find Awork files inside. C
has complied with UPL when they reused Awork, so the files are still
licensed like A licensed them, and include UPL license text or at
minimum a reference to the UPL. Awork as received by D *is* an identical
copy of Awork.

However, D cannot use it under UPL. D *has to* use it under GPL (as
it came), or, D can go upstream, to A's project, in order to *get the
right* to use a copy of Awork under UPL.

Upstream might exist or not, it might well be abandoned in the next
hundred years, but there's nothing else D can do. If they want to use it
under UPL, they *need* another license from somewhere. So they'd better
hope they can still find a copy that was *distributed under UPL*,
otherwise they cannot exercise their rights under UPL conditions.


-- 
~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom
works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)