Subject: Re: [OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:06:46 -0800
Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:06:46 -0800
On Nov 30, 2007 8:39 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

>   My reading of it would have been different.  Any modified versions are
> derived from the original and I would have guessed the same limitations of
> the original work so could not be GPL'd.  It could mean that you can't lock
> derived versions away under the GPL by extending it.
>
>
The license states no restrictions on derivative works.  It only says that
"this code" cannot be licensed under the GPL.


>
>
> At least that would have been my guess at the intent although I guess if
> you say you "can do whatever you want", that would include re-licensing the
> original code and perhaps that's the only thing prohibited.
>

My reading would have been to make it *less* likely that a fork would
arise.  For example if a project understood that it was possible, though
difficult, to license changes to the file under the GPL, they might opt to
just leave the file license in place indefinitely, and thus contribute back
improvements upstream to the permissively licensed projects.

IANAL either, but in this case, my first impulse would be to contact the
author for claification.

For example, something like:
Hi [author],

I noticed that your license does not permit the code under it to be licensed
under the GPL.  I am sort of confused what you mean by this.  Are you saying
it cannot be distributed as a part of a GPL'd work?  Or is your intent to
simply avoid confusion over whether a right to convert the license on your
work is granted?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On Nov 30, 2007 8:39 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

My reading of it would have been different.  Any modified versions are derived from the original and I would have guessed the same limitations of the original work so could not be GPL'd.  It could mean that you can't lock derived versions away under the GPL by extending it.


The license states no restrictions on derivative works.  It only says that "this code" cannot be licensed under the GPL.
 

 

At least that would have been my guess at the intent although I guess if you say you "can do whatever you want", that would include re-licensing the original code and perhaps that's the only thing prohibited.


My reading would have been to make it *less* likely that a fork would arise.  For example if a project understood that it was possible, though difficult, to license changes to the file under the GPL, they might opt to just leave the file license in place indefinitely, and thus contribute back improvements upstream to the permissively licensed projects.

IANAL either, but in this case, my first impulse would be to contact the author for claification.

For example, something like:
Hi [author],

I noticed that your license does not permit the code under it to be licensed under the GPL.  I am sort of confused what you mean by this.  Are you saying it cannot be distributed as a part of a GPL'd work?  Or is your intent to simply avoid confusion over whether a right to convert the license on your work is granted?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers