While mulling over a confusing part of something I'm writing, I decided to browse the info pages of GPC. In the GNU section, I read this:
When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself, your modified will become Free Software, too.
I'm no lawyer, but I've read enough of RMS's articles regarding the GPL, as well as a few technical (but not necessarily legalese) discussions of the same, to understand that, when modifications to Free Software DO NOT need to become free themselves.
As I understand it, modifications to Free Software do not need to be released; but when it is, it HAS to be released under the GPL, if the program modified was released under the GPL.
[CC'd to RMS, in case I goofed, and therefore should be banished from society and be forced to use nothing but proprietary software.]
Neil Santos wrote:
While mulling over a confusing part of something I'm writing, I decided to browse the info pages of GPC. In the GNU section, I read this:
When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself, your modified [work] will become Free Software, too.
I'm no lawyer, but I've read enough of RMS's articles regarding the GPL, as well as a few technical (but not necessarily legalese) discussions of the same, to understand that, when modifications to Free Software DO NOT need to become free themselves.
As I understand it, modifications to Free Software do not need to be released; but when it is, it HAS to be released under the GPL, if the program modified was released under the GPL.
[CC'd to RMS, in case I goofed, and therefore should be banished from society and be forced to use nothing but proprietary software.]
Since there was no reply so far: IANAL, but AFAICS, the main question is whether unreleased software (which is a derivative of GPL work, but wasn't put under the GPL) can/should be called free software, or whether this question is relevant at all (-; since the only one who has to the software at all also has the freedoms).
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or
[...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
Frank
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Since there was no reply so far: IANAL, but AFAICS, the main question is whether unreleased software (which is a derivative of GPL work, but wasn't put under the GPL) can/should be called free software, or whether this question is relevant at all (-; since the only one who has to the software at all also has the freedoms).
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or
[...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
IMHO the clarification is less accurate then the original. GPL requires derivative works to be free software, but one can choose different licence for new parts (say MIT licence). In fact, one can invent "Fixepoint PublicLicence" (FPL in short) which is a copy of GPL, but requres that all derivative works are (if) distributed under FGPL. AFAIKS FPL is incompatible with GPL, yet a lot of folks thinks that GPL is FPL.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Since there was no reply so far: IANAL, but AFAICS, the main question is whether unreleased software (which is a derivative of GPL work, but wasn't put under the GPL) can/should be called free software, or whether this question is relevant at all (-; since the only one who has to the software at all also has the freedoms).
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or
[...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
IMHO the clarification is less accurate then the original. GPL requires derivative works to be free software, but one can choose different licence for new parts (say MIT licence). In fact, one can invent "Fixepoint PublicLicence" (FPL in short) which is a copy of GPL, but requres that all derivative works are (if) distributed under FGPL. AFAIKS FPL is incompatible with GPL, yet a lot of folks thinks that GPL is FPL.
The GPL *does not* require derivative works to be free software *unless* they are distributed and even then, the copyright holder can make exceptions. I could, in theory, take GPC, add my own secret features to it, use it to compile my own proprietory software, which I could subsequently license for profit, all without violating the GPL, as long as I don't distribute my modified GPC under any terms other than those provided in the GPL; RMS might not personally approve of my conduct, but I would be within my legal rights.
The example is, of course, entirely hypothetical.
-------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x25 | (760)765-4738 | Cell: (760)445-6122 | -------------------------
John L. Ries wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Since there was no reply so far: IANAL, but AFAICS, the main question is whether unreleased software (which is a derivative of GPL work, but wasn't put under the GPL) can/should be called free software, or whether this question is relevant at all (-; since the only one who has to the software at all also has the freedoms).
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or
[...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
IMHO the clarification is less accurate then the original. GPL requires derivative works to be free software, but one can choose different licence for new parts (say MIT licence). In fact, one can invent "Fixepoint PublicLicence" (FPL in short) which is a copy of GPL, but requres that all derivative works are (if) distributed under FGPL. AFAIKS FPL is incompatible with GPL, yet a lot of folks thinks that GPL is FPL.
The GPL *does not* require derivative works to be free software *unless* they are distributed and even then, the copyright holder can make exceptions. I could, in theory, take GPC, add my own secret features to it, use it to compile my own proprietory software, which I could subsequently license for profit, all without violating the GPL, as long as I don't distribute my modified GPC under any terms other than those provided in the GPL; RMS might not personally approve of my conduct, but I would be within my legal rights.
The example is, of course, entirely hypothetical.
For real example look at Stanford Checker: http://metacomp.stanford.edu/
However, my point is that the words "free software" are fuzzy, and one may still claim that your modified GPC is free software. On the other hand fraze "must be under the GNU GPL" is _very_ precise and false. The proposed update would replace something that just stretches the truth by something that is plainy false.
Waldek Hebisch wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Since there was no reply so far: IANAL, but AFAICS, the main question is whether unreleased software (which is a derivative of GPL work, but wasn't put under the GPL) can/should be called free software, or whether this question is relevant at all (-; since the only one who has to the software at all also has the freedoms).
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or
[...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
IMHO the clarification is less accurate then the original. GPL requires derivative works to be free software,
(only if distributed)
but one can choose different licence for new parts (say MIT licence).
For new parts alone (see below), but not for the work as a whole.
In fact, one can invent "Fixepoint PublicLicence" (FPL in short) which is a copy of GPL, but requres that all derivative works are (if) distributed under FGPL. AFAIKS FPL is incompatible with GPL, yet a lot of folks thinks that GPL is FPL.
AFAICS, this is exactly what the GPL requires:
: 2.b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in : whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any : part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all : third parties under the terms of this License.
John L. Ries wrote:
The GPL *does not* require derivative works to be free software *unless* they are distributed and even then, the copyright holder can make exceptions. I could, in theory, take GPC, add my own secret features to it, use it to compile my own proprietory software, which I could subsequently license for profit, all without violating the GPL, as long as I don't distribute my modified GPC under any terms other than those provided in the GPL; RMS might not personally approve of my conduct, but I would be within my legal rights.
Indeed, since you would not be distributing a GPL derived work. (Note however the license on the libraries that your program uses; some units, e.g. md5.pas, are distributed under the GPL, so a program that uses them would be GPL derived.)
Waldek Hebisch wrote:
However, my point is that the words "free software" are fuzzy, and one may still claim that your modified GPC is free software. On the other hand fraze "must be under the GNU GPL" is _very_ precise and false. The proposed update would replace something that just stretches the truth by something that is plainy false.
I still fail to see how it's false. To recapitulate, the current text says:
: When you modify a free program released under the GNU General : Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself, your : modified [work] will become Free Software, too.
Proposed addition:
: [...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must : be under the GNU GPL.
So "it" refers to the modified work, which I understand as meaning the complete work, including or derived from GPL parts.
If "it" were only the modifications, you could be right, since modifications that can stand on their own (e.g., mere additions) could be released under a different license. But the whole work has to be under the GPL (if released).
What might have added to the confusion in that in the original post the word "work" was omitted from the quote. But since the sentence "your modified will become Free Software" is grammatically wrong AFAIK, it's obvious that it was just a quotation error (and one can always check the original sources).
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
<snip> > Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) > suggests the following clarification: > > [...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL.
For excessive clarification, add this:
"... (Your modifications, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity, may be released any way you like, but the combination of them with GPC may only be released under the terms of the GNU GPL.)"
Since (at least) 3 different points have been discussed so far, I suggest this:
When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself:
1. You can released and license your own modifications any way you like, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity.
2. If you distribute or publish the whole work, including or derived from GPL licensed parts, the whole work (including your modifications) must be licensed under the terms of the GPL. (Note: This does not contradict 1. since you can license your work in several way.)
3. You do not have to distribute or publish the whole work at all. In this case the question of license of the whole work does not arise.
Note: These are informal explanations which should not be construed as legal advice. The legally binding text is only the text contained in the license statement.
Frank
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Since (at least) 3 different points have been discussed so far, I suggest this:
When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself:
You can released and license your own modifications any way you like, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity.
If you distribute or publish the whole work, including or derived from GPL licensed parts, the whole work (including your modifications) must be licensed under the terms of the GPL. (Note: This does not contradict 1. since you can license your work in several way.)
You do not have to distribute or publish the whole work at all. In this case the question of license of the whole work does not arise.
Note: These are informal explanations which should not be construed as legal advice. The legally binding text is only the text contained in the license statement.
Looks fine for me.
On 19:15 16/04/04, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or [...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
IMHO the clarification is less accurate then the original. GPL requires derivative works to be free software, but one can choose different licence for new parts (say MIT licence). In fact, one can invent
Peter Gerwinski's solution is optimal; however, we must note that, as Waldek does, that modifications to the GPC distribution done by adding entirely new files (without code already contained in the GPC distro) can be released under a different license.
But if we're going to do that, we'd also have to note that whether or not you'd have to use a GPL-compatible license depends on whether or not your entirely-new-files link with the whole distro (in which case it HAS to be released under a GPL-compatible license), or is designed to be used separately (in which case it can be proprietary).
Yes, I know I've opened a whole box of cans of worms. I'm sorry.
[P.S. John Ries has a follow-up on the topic, explaining why derivative works don't necessarily have to be free software; not even open source.]
Frank Heckenbach wrote: <snip>
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL.
For excessive clarification, add this:
"... (Your modifications, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity, may be released any way you like, but the combination of them with GPC may only be released under the terms of the GNU GPL.)"
On 16:21 16/04/04, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL.
For excessive clarification, add this:
"... (Your modifications, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity, may be released any way you like, but the combination of them with GPC may only be released under the terms of the GNU GPL.)"
``Separate entity'' is rather vague; do you mean that it can run standalone, or do you mean that it does not contain code from any GPL-covered software? Both have to be true before you can consider releasing it under any license other than GPL.
``But the combination of them with GPC'' is also vague. If you mean combination as `distributing with GPC', then it does not have to be under the GPL (or any other free/open source license), provided the two questions in the above paragraph hold true.
On 16:21 16/04/04, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL.
For excessive clarification, add this:
"... (Your modifications, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity, may be released any way you like, but the combination of them with GPC may only be released under the terms of the GNU GPL.)"
``Separate entity'' is rather vague; do you mean that it can run standalone, or do you mean that it does not contain code from any GPL-covered software? Both have to be true before you can consider releasing it under any license other than GPL.
"*Your* modifications" means to me that they're really yours, i.e. don't contain code from any GPL-covered software or anything else for that matter.
Peter Gerwinski's solution is optimal; however, we must note that, as Waldek does, that modifications to the GPC distribution done by adding entirely new files (without code already contained in the GPC distro) can be released under a different license.
But if we're going to do that, we'd also have to note that whether or not you'd have to use a GPL-compatible license depends on whether or not your entirely-new-files link with the whole distro (in which case it HAS to be released under a GPL-compatible license), or is designed to be used separately (in which case it can be proprietary).
In my latest I wrote "When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself: [...]", so I think it's clear (*modifying* a free program; also, changes to GPC itself will always link to GPL code). But if deemed necessary, I can also address this issue specially.
Frank
On 03:58 21/04/04, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
"... (Your modifications, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity, may be released any way you like, but the combination of them with GPC may only be released under the terms of the GNU GPL.)"
``Separate entity'' is rather vague; do you mean that it can run standalone, or do you mean that it does not contain code from any GPL-covered software? Both have to be true before you can consider releasing it under any license other than GPL.
"*Your* modifications" means to me that they're really yours, i.e. don't contain code from any GPL-covered software or anything else for that matter.
You can not modify something that that wasn't already there. This is akin to the phrase ``new and improved''; how can you improve something that didn't exist before?
Case in point, ``your modifications'' does not neccessarily have to mean that the lines of code you inserted/added aren't protected by the GPL. Removal of lines, of course, is a no-brainer: the new codebase would obviously still have to be under the GPL.
But if we're going to do that, we'd also have to note that whether or not you'd have to use a GPL-compatible license depends on whether or not your entirely-new-files link with the whole distro (in which case it HAS to be released under a GPL-compatible license), or is designed to be used separately (in which case it can be proprietary).
In my latest I wrote "When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself: [...]", so I think it's clear (*modifying* a free program; also, changes to GPC itself will always link to GPL code). But if deemed necessary, I can also address this issue specially.
That about covers that part, Frank; when I wrote this message, I don't think you've written your reply yet (or I just haven't received it yet). Add to that the fact that I forgot to change the To: field (again).
-
Frank Heckenbach -
John L. Ries -
Nathanael Nerode -
Neil Santos -
Waldek Hebisch