An interesting gpl case

[KL-666]

Say you have always distributed your software under gpl, and now you think, let's do things different and have another license.

Everything you have done to date has to remain gpl. The new stuff may be non-gpl. But now you can not bundle your previous software with your new software. That can be mighty problematic in some cases. Yet there is nothing that can be done about it.

Note: Distributed is important here. If the software never left your office under gpl, there is no problem in relicensing the software to date.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Well yes and no....

The problem with non-gpl material is not the restriction on modifying but on distribution... if your new license specifically allowed for distribution alongside GPL and CC but restricted modifications of this material covered by it, then there'd be no problems..

The GPL and CC content could still be distributed and modified
non-GPL (must come up with a better name) distributed but not modified.

User get an up-to-date plane, Authors work is protected and if a moder wishes he can privately contact the originating author for modification permission.

[IAHM-COL]

Well yes and no....

The problem with non-gpl material is not the restriction on modifying but on distribution... if your new license specifically allowed for distribution alongside GPL and CC but restricted modifications of this material covered by it, then there'd be no problems..

That's actually a HUGE problem bomber.

GPL is structured behind the idea of preserving the freedom for users of software.
One of the most important of those freedoms is that of modification: for both personal use as well as for allowing the redistribution of those modifications.

Any license that restricts modification and/or redistribution of modified sources is GPL incompatible. That has been clarified by the FSF in every single piece of information they release.
In simpler terms, if you make a license that restricts modifications of the material, then it cannot be side-by-side with the GPL license, and thus such usage is strongly discouraged.

[IAHM-COL]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL

Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... Compatible

What does it mean to say that two licenses are “compatible”?

In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way. If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.

For some licenses, the way in which the combination is made may affect whether they are compatible—for instance, they may allow linking two modules together, but not allow merging their code into one module.

If you just want to install two separate programs in the same system, it is not necessary that their licenses be compatible, because this does not combine them into a larger work.

[bomber]

Yeh.....but now what we have is FSF taking away the writes of an author to license their work as they see fit...

And FSF have said that they don't do this..

[bomber]

It is distribution that makes them compatible...not modifications

We've seen this with Thorsten Shuttle..... his gripe was the distribution of non-gpl content. Now if this non-gpl content had used a license to free distribute then there'd have been no issue.

So as it stands, these materials are non-compatible.... as witnessed by the ensuing argument.

Now if I release to you a piece of work which I license as distribute how you like, don't sell and don't modify it..... I'm guessing you can work out what I want from you with regards my material.

I'm guessing FSF are trying to dumb it down to a single license... such that you haven't got difference terms and conditions on your materials. However it's kinda saying that the moder doesn't know an orange from an apple or a GPL from a CC license and apply the rules other each to the corresponding material.

[IAHM-COL]

The liberties are

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
0. the freedom to use the software as you wish (the author can't restrict intention)
1. the freedom to study the software and modify it to fit the user's needs (the author can't restrict modifications and must make source code available as to not limit this)
2. the freedom to redistribute verbatim copies of the original software.
3. the freedom to distribute modified versions you could have made by using freedom No. 1

For a license to be compatible with GPL, it must be FULLY compatible with all those for freedoms. There is not nitpicking. There is not distribution is more important to modification. Or Freedom 0 and 2 we like, but we need to prevent 1 and 3 and hope we will have a GPL compatible license. It will not be. All four freedoms are quintessential and must remain untouched.

Thorsten may not want to see modification of his GPL material. The license covering his work says: "it does not matter what you want"; it is what it is.

[bomber]

FSF doesn't have the right to tell me or you what we can and can't do to our own material.

It's just a bigger example of bullshit.

[KL-666]

If the non-gpl is totally independent of the gpl, then there is a slight possibility that they do not make a big fuss of it. But if the non-gpl in any way can be seen as a "work based on the Program" (Program = gpl part in the bundle), then the non-gpl part should be gpl.

Generally they are not happy with bundling gpl and non-gpl, so why want to bundle 2 programs that are totally unrelated anyway? Just distribute them separately.

Kind regards Vincent

[bomber]

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
0. the freedom to use the software as you wish (the author can't restrict intention)
1. the freedom to study the software and modify it to fit the user's needs (the author can't restrict modifications and must make source code available as to not limit this)
2. the freedom to redistribute verbatim copies of the original software.
3. the freedom to distribute modified versions you could have made by using freedom No. 1
4. The freedom to force an authors work to be GPL

There's not a 4th one.... and even they admit there isn't