This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll
reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discussion(_at_)fsfeurope(_dot_)org to
get
other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative
answer, talk to licensing(_at_)gnu(_dot_)org(_dot_)
Harald Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> writes:
BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the
GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and
since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal
(by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to
be free of restrictions upon its modification.
I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder
for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information
is unclear.
Simon,
the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look.
There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL.
I want to release this under the GPL.
You can't release the text of the GPL under the GPL license, since you
are not the copyright holder of the text in the GPL license. Further,
the license of the GPL text does not permit re-licensing, or even
modifications.
Now, I have three possible interpretations:
1 - The words of the GPL that say "Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it
is not allowed." don't really apply in this case.
That interpretation seems clearly bogus to me.
2 - The words of the GPL that say "You may modify your copy or copies
of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the
Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the
terms of Section 1 above" don't apply to modifications of the portion
of the Program that is the GPL
This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at
first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as
this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it
does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not
normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work.
3 - I'm breaking the GPL
That may hold as well, but without further elaboration I can't tell for
sure.
I compared the part of your work that consists of the GPL text with the
canonical version [1]. It seems that someone has modified the license
text: the section 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' is
missing. If you had read that section, you would know of a better way
to explain the licensing conditions to users that would have avoided the
problem. I believe this violate the license on the GPL itself, so you
may want to fix it. However, I don't think the FSF will care
significantly about that problem.
For more information, see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included
text .... which is it?
Your question comes up and is answered in Debian mailing lists from time
to time: some people claim that Debian cannot distribute the GPL license
text because it is not licensed under a free software license.
/Simon
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf