Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #226285 > unrolled thread

Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-18 23:50 +0200
    Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-08-19 08:10 +0200
      Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-19 14:30 +0200
        Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-08-19 15:40 +0200
        Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? tomas@tuxteam.de - 2020-08-19 16:20 +0200
          Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-19 17:40 +0200
            Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-08-19 18:10 +0200
              Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-08-19 18:20 +0200
              Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-19 19:00 +0200
            Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? tomas@tuxteam.de - 2020-08-19 18:30 +0200
              Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-19 19:10 +0200
                Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-08-19 20:00 +0200
                  Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-20 12:50 +0200
                    Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-08-20 14:00 +0200
                      Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-08-20 17:00 +0200
                        Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-08-20 18:30 +0200
                          Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-08-20 19:30 +0200
                    Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-08-20 17:50 +0200

#226285 — Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

Hello,

I'm just curious. According to general perception BSD, MIT or Apache2
licenses are GPL3 compatible.

Is it true ? I'm not lawyer, but with GPL requirement to cover whole
combined work with GPL it seems to be not so obvious.

That especially true for GPL3 where combined work must to be covered
with GPL3, what means has requirements for patents used by work.

Neither BSD nor MIT licenses have any clue about author patents used in
work. It seems obvious that you have patent grant from author as long
as you use or modify BSD/MIT software, but nothing about any other use
of patents.

I'm not sure for Apache2. There is patent grant from contributors, but
I do not see patent grant from copyright holder (who can be not
contributor, but also have patents)

Cheers,
    Marek Mosiewicz

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#226287

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> Hello,

hello

> I'm just curious. According to general perception BSD, MIT or Apache2
> licenses are GPL3 compatible.

There are many fine resources out there for you to read. I'd
recommend [1], [2] and [3] for starters. Yes, [1] is gnu.org:
one might think they have a bias -- still it's well structured
and worth a read.

> Is it true ? I'm not lawyer, but with GPL requirement to cover whole
> combined work with GPL it seems to be not so obvious.

The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.

> That especially true for GPL3 where combined work must to be covered
> with GPL3, what means has requirements for patents used by work.

That only means you lose the protection afforded by GPL3 once you
assert patent rights (e.g. by submarine patents). Remember -- GPL
/grants/ you permissions to do things which, by default, would be
forbidden. So it only can revoke those things, if you are in breach
of contract.

> Neither BSD nor MIT licenses have any clue about author patents used in
> work. It seems obvious that you have patent grant from author as long
> as you use or modify BSD/MIT software,

Is it? It will strongly depend on jurisdiction, I guess.

>             but nothing about any other use
> of patents.

Why should the patent grant be tied to the license of the end
software? Now, if the license explicitly states so, perhaps.

> I'm not sure for Apache2. There is patent grant from contributors, but
> I do not see patent grant from copyright holder (who can be not
> contributor, but also have patents)

The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.

Cheers

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences
[4] I very much prefer this term to the "permissive" you used in the
   subject: permissive is ambiguous. Permissive to whom? Users?
   Programmers? Distributors?

 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226295

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 08∶05 +0200, użytkownik
tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> > Hello,
> 
> hello
> 
> > I'm just curious. According to general perception BSD, MIT or
> > Apache2
> > licenses are GPL3 compatible.
> 
> There are many fine resources out there for you to read. I'd
> recommend [1], [2] and [3] for starters. Yes, [1] is gnu.org:
> one might think they have a bias -- still it's well structured
> and worth a read.
> 
> > Is it true ? I'm not lawyer, but with GPL requirement to cover
> > whole
> > combined work with GPL it seems to be not so obvious.
> 
> The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
> proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.
BSD and MIT allows you to combine it with other work I agree. In MIT
license there is even permission to SUBlicense. Unfortunetly we are
talking about GPL (GPL3 especially)license and as from my understanding
it requires to publish WHOLE combined work on corresponding GPL
license. MIT/BSD license does not have any clue about changing license
in that way. That is fixed requirements and it is probably reason why
FSF even says GPL3 is not GPL2 comaptible. So how MIT/BSD could be
compatible.
> 
> > That especially true for GPL3 where combined work must to be
> > covered
> > with GPL3, what means has requirements for patents used by work.
> 
> That only means you lose the protection afforded by GPL3 once you
> assert patent rights (e.g. by submarine patents). Remember -- GPL
> /grants/ you permissions to do things which, by default, would be
> forbidden. So it only can revoke those things, if you are in breach
> of contract.

> 
> > Neither BSD nor MIT licenses have any clue about author patents
> > used in
> > work. It seems obvious that you have patent grant from author as
> > long
> > as you use or modify BSD/MIT software,
> 
> Is it? It will strongly depend on jurisdiction, I guess.
OK. I'm not sure of it. It seems for me that if you can use and modify
some software, that means that author gives You permission to use
patents in given work as long as they are authors patents (THAT IS ONLY
MY ASSUMPTION). That of course does not cover any patents not belonging
to software authors

> >             but nothing about any other use
> > of patents.
> 
> Why should the patent grant be tied to the license of the end
> software? Now, if the license explicitly states so, perhaps.
> 
> > I'm not sure for Apache2. There is patent grant from contributors,
> > but
> > I do not see patent grant from copyright holder (who can be not
> > contributor, but also have patents)
> 
> The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
> among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.
> 
Is it GPL3 compatible ?

> 
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
> [2] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
> [3] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences
> [4] I very much prefer this term to the "permissive" you used in the
>    subject: permissive is ambiguous. Permissive to whom? Users?
>    Programmers? Distributors?
> 
>  - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226296

Hi,

as for the subject:

None that would allow forth and back excange of copyrightable material.
That's a design goal of GPL. Once in, always in.
See:
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html


tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish

Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> MIT/BSD license does not have any clue about changing license

BSD/MIT are not intended to claim any restrictions beyond the obligation
not to present as own brain work what was taken for free from BSD licensed
software. I.e. you have to maintain authorship and copyright claims.

It's a license for free science, not for commercial or political goals.


> So how MIT/BSD could be compatible.

It is a one-way relation, about which many BSD-licensing developers are
not happy and some GPL licensers are somewhat embarrassed.
We can take from them, they cannot take from us.

But if both sides uphold their basic license goals, it cannot be made less
injust to the BSD side.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the official classification of licenses by the Free Software Foundation
regarding compatiblity with GPL see:
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

About the licensed developed for or by the FSF:
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

The FSF does not like the BSD licenses much
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html
but GNU maintainers are known to make their own decisions. :))


Note that not necessarily the FSF but the copyright holder of the software
issues the license. So the FSF's interpretation of its own legal text GPL
still can be overridden by the actual issuer when it comes to legal disputes,
especially since GPL is optimized for the U.S. legal system (cough) and thus
might need in other court systems plausible clarifications by the license
issuer.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226298

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 08∶05 +0200, użytkownik
> tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:

[...]

> > The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
> > proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.
> BSD and MIT allows you to combine it with other work I agree [...]

I think Thomas answered that part well.

Moreover, just have a look at the diagram in the reference [2]
I linked to in my last answer.

[...]

> > The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
> > among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.
> > 
> Is it GPL3 compatible ?

Yes. Again, see the diagram in [2].

Cheers

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses

 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226299

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 16∶11 +0200, użytkownik
tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> > W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 08∶05 +0200, użytkownik
> > tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> > > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
> > > proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.
> > BSD and MIT allows you to combine it with other work I agree [...]
> 
> I think Thomas answered that part well.
> 
> Moreover, just have a look at the diagram in the reference [2]
> I linked to in my last answer.
Thanks, I noticed diagram now. This is something I recognized. 

Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that MIT(X11)
and BSD are GPL compatible [1]

That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]

That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]

One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially in
Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2
license.

It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+

Kind regards,
    Marek Mosiewicz
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
> > > among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.
> > > 
> > Is it GPL3 compatible ?
> 
> Yes. Again, see the diagram in [2].
> 
> Cheers
> 
> [2] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
> 
>  - t
[1] 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[2] http://adempiere.net/
[3] https://github.com/adempiere/adempiere/blob/develop/license.txt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226300

Hi,

Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble
> there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2 license.
> It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+

It could well be Apache2 or BSD, provided that it is _for_ the GPL2
licensed project, and does not contain copyrighted work _from_ a GPL2
licensed project.

If you are legally entitled to issue a permissive license and do it,
then each of your releases can swim down the Wikipedia diagram to GPLv3+.
Permissively and copyleftly licensed programs alike can then use it by
their right to re-license it.
Just make sure your releases are comprised only of permissivel licensed
parts.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226301

Hi,

sorry, i just read that Apache2 cannot be converted to GPLV2 but only
to GPLv3.
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2

So it would have to be BSD, from which everybody can derive what matches
best.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226303

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 18∶01 +0200, użytkownik Thomas
Schmitt napisał:
> Hi,
> 
> Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> > That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble
> > there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2 license.
> > It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+
> 
> It could well be Apache2 or BSD, provided that it is _for_ the GPL2
> licensed project, and does not contain copyrighted work _from_ a GPL2
> licensed project.
> 
> If you are legally entitled to issue a permissive license and do it,
It is new project for ADempiere and one of main main consideration is
license
> then each of your releases can swim down the Wikipedia diagram to
> GPLv3+.
I belive it is not how this diagram should be read.

It is true that you can link permissive licensed code with
correspondign LGPL. That is because LGPL does not obligate you to
relicense whole work as strict GPL. You can even link commercial code
with LGPL.

It is also true that you can link LGPL code with corresponding GPL
license code. That is because LGPL contains clause that you can always
switch from LGPL to GPL

I think however that it is NOT true that you can link directly from
BSD/MIT/Apache2 to corresponding strict GPL license.

On diagram there is no direct relation between e.g. MIT and GPL2. In my
opinion it means that you can only link permissive license via LGPL
proxy API. It probably also brings question about distribiuing MIT-
>LGPL->GPL as one program.
> Permissively and copyleftly licensed programs alike can then use it
> by
> their right to re-license it.
> Just make sure your releases are comprised only of permissivel
> licensed
> parts.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226302

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:

[...]

> Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that MIT(X11)
> and BSD are GPL compatible [1]

I don't know what's "unfortunate". They are GPL compatible,
meaning you can take any BSD/MIT licensed piece of code and
integrate it into a GPL corpus. As you can integrate them
into any other proprietary corpus.

It isn't going to work the other way around (GPL isn't MIT
compatibe in the above sense). "Compatible" isn't a symmetric
relation (otherwise, the mentioned diagram would have lines,
not arrows :-)

> That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
> selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]
> 
> That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]
> 
> One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially in
> Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2
> license.
> 
> It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+

That depends on what your goals and ideals are.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226304

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 18∶29 +0200, użytkownik
tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that
> > MIT(X11)
> > and BSD are GPL compatible [1]
> 
> I don't know what's "unfortunate". They are GPL compatible,
> meaning you can take any BSD/MIT licensed piece of code and
> integrate it into a GPL corpus. As you can integrate them
> into any other proprietary corpus.
> 
> It isn't going to work the other way around (GPL isn't MIT
> compatibe in the above sense). "Compatible" isn't a symmetric
> relation (otherwise, the mentioned diagram would have lines,
> not arrows :-)
Arrows show THE PATH :). You need to RELICENSE your code to LGPL to be
able to link it with GPL. If it is not the case why there is no direct
arrow between for example BSD and GPL2 ?
> 
> > That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
> > selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]
> > 
> > That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]
> > 
> > One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially
> > in
> > Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with
> > Apache2
> > license.
> > 
> > It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+
> 
> That depends on what your goals and ideals are.
> 
> Cheers
>  - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226305

Hi,

> I think however that it is NOT true that you can link directly from
> BSD/MIT/Apache2 to corresponding strict GPL license.

Well, as said, Apache2-to-GPLv2 conversion is not acknowledged by FSF and
thus by most GPLv2(without+) issuers. If it was GPLv2+, then it would be ok,
because you could then derive GPLv3 from your license and the target
project's license.
>From a BSD license everybody can derive any other usage license.

Formally you and your users derive a license from the target project (as
far as permitted) and a matching one from your project.
If the target project is GPLv2, you cannot derive any other license from it.
So the license derived from your project has to be GPLv2, too.

That's absolute no problem starting from a BSD license.
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD


> You need to RELICENSE your code to LGPL to be
> able to link it with GPL.

You and your users can relicense it as GPLv2 and link it with the GPLv2
target project, every time you or your users start it.
It is actually an ad-hoc process. You make sure that it can be done,
state that fact to those who are interested, and everybody who runs
that combination runs it as GPLv2 program ... or shall be curesed. ;-)

If it's a complicated network of license derivations, then write it down
and publish it with your license statement. But BSD->GPLv2 is simple.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226321

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 19∶50 +0200, użytkownik Thomas
Schmitt napisał:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> If it's a complicated network of license derivations, then write it
> down
> and publish it with your license statement. But BSD->GPLv2 is simple.
> 
I think Apache2->GPL3 compatibility is defined in GPL3 section 7
(Additional terms). This section allows to add additional "permissive"
terms to part of program as long as whole program is governed by GPL3
license

Acctually after carefully reading GPL3 license it seems that having
copy or running GPL3 program privately is not prohibited, even if you
violate license (section 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.)
> 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226326

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:39:48PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 19∶50 +0200, użytkownik Thomas
> Schmitt napisał:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > If it's a complicated network of license derivations, then write it
> > down
> > and publish it with your license statement. But BSD->GPLv2 is simple.
> > 
> I think Apache2->GPL3 compatibility is defined in GPL3 section 7
> (Additional terms). This section allows to add additional "permissive"
> terms to part of program as long as whole program is governed by GPL3
> license
> 
> Acctually after carefully reading GPL3 license it seems that having
> copy or running GPL3 program privately is not prohibited, even if you
> violate license (section 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.)

That's absolutely right. GPL (2 or 3) puts no limits on usage, only
on (re)distribution: you are allowed to (re)distribute if you grant
the receiver the same rights which were granted to you under that
license.

(Actually, to be more precise, the limits are there by "normal" copyright
law, and are lifted for you by the GPL).

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226331

W dniu czw, 20.08.2020 o godzinie 13∶55 +0200, użytkownik
tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> > 
> > Acctually after carefully reading GPL3 license it seems that having
> > copy or running GPL3 program privately is not prohibited, even if
> > you
> > violate license (section 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having
> > Copies.)
> 
> That's absolutely right. GPL (2 or 3) puts no limits on usage, only
> on (re)distribution: you are allowed to (re)distribute if you grant
> the receiver the same rights which were granted to you under that
> license.
> 
> (Actually, to be more precise, the limits are there by "normal"
> copyright
> law, and are lifted for you by the GPL).
That should be probably explained by some expert on GPL in Wikipedia
discussion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:License_compatibility



> Cheers
> -- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226334

Hi,

Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> That should be probably explained by some expert on GPL in Wikipedia
> discussion here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:License_compatibility

Ouch.

In general, Wikipedia authors are not allowed to be experts but
should rather be researchers for the writings of experts.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
(I guess it would help the factual quality of many articles if experts
 could acquire an official witness status ...)

The professional experts for GPL are the lawyers and judges of the
country where a particular copyright or licence problem gets brought
to court.

As said in a previous mail, it matters much what the issuer of the
license states as intended interpretation of the GPL. So why not ask
the license issuers of your target project whether they would mind
software with your preferred license to be linked in ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the context of Debian it is amusing that one of the main combattants
on that wikipedia talk page is "Schily" = Joerg Schilling, the author of
cdrecord and mkisofs. His view on licensing earned his software an
ejection from Debian in 2006, which caused the forking of wodim and
genisoimage.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226335

Thomas Schmitt writes:
> In general, Wikipedia authors are not allowed to be experts but
> should rather be researchers for the writings of experts.

Yes they are.  How would you stop them?  It's just that their
credentials don't count for anything.  They are not to write "In my
expert opinion" but instead must support every assertion with a
reference to published work.

-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226333

Marek writes:
> Acctually after carefully reading GPL3 license it seems that having
> copy or running GPL3 program privately is not prohibited

In the USA and some many other jurisdictions you cannot violate any
copyright license by running a program because copyright controls only
the right to make copies and running a program does not do that.  It may
involve making temporary "ephemeral" copies such as the copy from disk
to RAM: USA copyright law clarifies this by granting a specific
exemption for running programs. Section 9 of the GPL makes this explicit
and extends it to other jurisdictions.

The license terms attached to a copy of a work by the copyright owner
apply to all copies of that work made by others no matter what terms are
attached to other works that it is subsequently attached to or embedded
in.  Note that if you make substantive changes it becomes a deriviative.


-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web