On 05/04/2010 09:53 AM, Peter Seebach wrote: > In message <e1o9kpn-0005yp...@fencepost.gnu.org>, "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: >> If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to >> ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It >> might be a nice thing to do, but if the original author says no for >> some reason, the FSF can still relicense the work; they are the >> copyright holders.
Yes, from the FSF side of things, having the FSF own the copyright is handy for upgrading licenses; we used this feature to upgrade some files from GPLv2 to GPLv3 without having to ask the original authors. But for downgrading, we tend to view it as a last-ditch escape clause; we prefer to first ask the original author for permission; and if the original author consents, then it was the author and not the FSF doing the license relaxation. It is only because of the fact that the original author is not always available that the FSF reserves the right to change a license itself. You can search the gnulib list archives for examples of asking original authors for permission to relax licenses (most recently, we relaxed several replacement header licenses this month). > > And for that matter, it seems that at that point, the original author > doesn't have the right to just keep a copy under the terms under which > they intended to release it... Thus the issue. (It turns out that > GPLv3 is pretty deeply problematic for me; it turns out that I'd rather > just let people like TiVO play stupid games than have to deal with v3.) Part of the papers that you sign when assigning copyright to the FSF is a grant-back clause (1.d), which states that the FSF grants back to you, as the original author, the right to use your contributions outside of FSF control as you see fit. Although I'm not a lawyer, I read this to mean that you, as author, can relax the license externally at your own will (although that only covers the legal aspects; there are still the moral aspects to consider, particularly if you abuse the grant-back clause to release things under a license incompatible with LGPL). And even if the FSF does someday choose to upgrade the license on your contribution after the fact, anyone that wants it under the old license can use version control to get back at the state of your contribution prior to the license change. But all of this talk of license relaxation is somewhat pointless - if you release it under LGPLv2+ in the first place, and ask that it be included in gnulib under that license, then it already meets your needs and we don't have to relax anything after the fact. If you are worried that everything in gnulib is GPLv3, you are mistaken. We already do have, and continue to add, modules under LGPLv2+. But do note that we request the v2+, because we rely on that explicit 'or later' clause in order to allow use of your module in a GPLv3 project; what we cannot accept is code under LPGLv2-only. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
