[freeroleplay] Re: Should We Use FDL?
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <ax0n@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:04:29 +0000
Samuel Penn wrote:
> Actually, the other bit I don't like about the GPL and varients is
> the bit that says 'this version or the license, or any later one'.
> In theory, a later version of the license could come along which I
> disagree with, and a 'user' could apply that one.
Actually, examining the body of the GPL I'm not sure the above is true.
The exact text is:
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version
number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the
Free Software Foundation."
- Section 9, GNU Public License, Version 2[1]
This seems to imply that the version you can re-license derivative,
modications or copies under is determined by the licensers, not the FSF.
I interpret this as: If the program specifies the version of the GPL
that it is licensed under and doesn't mention "any later version", you
must re-license derivative works with only that version of the GPL. (IANAL)
Section 3 (on modifications) has the following sub-clause:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License." [1]
Note the use of 'this License' at the end: it makes no mention of other
versions of the GPL.
> If you don't think it'd happen, consider the issue about whether
> running a server is 'distribution'. Currently, you can take GPL'd
> server code, modify it, and run it from a website without giving
> the changes back to the community, since you've never 'distributed'
> the software to anyone.
That could be very bad for people who are trying to convince their
companies to run free software on their servers, although I can
understand why the FSF is looking into this. I have my doubts about
whether they will actually do this, given the chaos and trouble it will
cause. Also, this would probably break their first, fundamental freedom,
to use the program for any purpose.
In the end, I trust the FSF, not just because I trust it members but
because its a community-orientated organisation and I imagine too much
pressure will be brought to bear by people like us, who work in industry
and are trying to move people over to free software.
> Anyway, how difficult would it be to modify one of the existing
> licenses? Is there a big enough bonus for going with a well
> recognised one which would make this a non-option?
I would love to do the above, or simply write our own free-content
license. Unfortunately, the problem with modifying an existing license
is that the modification would require a lawyer, and not just any lawyer
but an expensive IP-lawyer, to look over it and ensure its legally
watertight. We just don't have the resources yet.
The other option is that we go to another organisation and see whether
they can modify their licenses. I have just fired off an email to the
Creative Commons about this very matter.
However, examining the contents of the GPL I'm coming round more and
more to the idea that it can be used as a valid content license. For
example, it defines source code to mean:
"...the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." [1]
As the debian-legal list notes[2], this could be interpreted as an
alternative definition of an editable copy as we define it, although
this could also include distributing in 'opaque' formats such as MS
Word. However, given the widespread availablity of open-source word
processors that can read MS Word, and other 'proprietary' formats,
perhaps this isn't so much of a problem anymore. Without a doubt, this
clause would stop people from publishing hardcopy-only or PDF-only.
References
----------
[1]http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
Version 2 of the GNU Public License
[2]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00082.html
An interesting discussion of why the GPL is perfectly valid as a content
license, without all the problems of the FDL.
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
