- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:21:27 -0400
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On 03/22/2011 09:04 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 03/22/2011 12:26 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> The FSF maintains otherwise and have publicly stated so[2]. It is my >> understanding that if this license is approved by the W3C that the FSF >> will take a similar position on this option. This is based on my >> understanding of the outcome when actual lawyers employed by W3C member >> companies talked to actual lawyers of the FSF who were involved in the >> drafting of the GPL license. > > Hmm, maybe I misread the thread, but I thought the Google lawyers > claimed something different. In particular > > """My lawyer said in no uncertain terms that what you propose as > "option 3" would not let people publish derivative works of these > specifications as specifications. Thus, it is in our opinion > unacceptable as a solution to the problem of how to enable people to > publish derivative works of these specifications as specifications.""" [1] First, I will note that nothing in that statement says "not compatible with the GPL". Perhaps some people believe that compatibility with the GPL conveys more rights than it actually does? > Presumably these apparently-conflicting claims could only be resolved if > it is acceptable under the GPL to have such a field of use restriction. > My belief was that it is not. If my belief is wrong, it would be nice to > have a clear explanation of why it is wrong rather than just "some > lawyers said so". If I have misunderstood for some other reason it would > be nice to get a clear explanation of what I have misunderstood. I invite you to actually read the license and FAQs that I have pointed to and note merely rely on your beliefs. Furthermore, you have elided the statement by Larry Rosen on the topic of GPL compatibility which is decisive: As for the mandates of the GPL, the only thing that the GPL prohibits is "further restrictions" [1] and Option 3 has no such. There are no limitations or restrictions that would have to be passed on to downstream licensees. [1] From GPLv3: "All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License *along with a term that is a further restriction,* you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying." [Emphasis between * * is added] So to my read, we have a lawyer who is citing actual text from the license, we will have public a statement by the authors of the GPL license itself, and meanwhile you have cited a second hand statement by an unnamed lawyer concerning a matter unrelated to the GPL. I encourage everybody to evaluate each of these statements. > (note: none of the above should be read as endorsement for a particular > outcome or set of requirements. I am just trying to understand the > situation and, as the thread has gone on, I feel I have become less > enlightened, not more). > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.1103100507380.944@ps20323.dreamhostps.com - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 14:22:06 UTC