Comments on: Guest post: 2010 – Threats to copyleft http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/ open source software innovation support centre Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:30:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Matt McCutchen http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-269 Matt McCutchen Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:04:36 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-269 OK, the reference to the GPLv3 misled me about the point you were making. Note that two nominally different licenses with identical terms are compatible; incompatibilities are a result of substantive differences between license terms. To the extent that the differences reflect a community's intent not to allow its work to be used under the other terms, it would be wrong to just add a relicensing provision. The differences should be discussed and their implications understood first. OK, the reference to the GPLv3 misled me about the point you were making.

Note that two nominally different licenses with identical terms are compatible; incompatibilities are a result of substantive differences between license terms. To the extent that the differences reflect a community’s intent not to allow its work to be used under the other terms, it would be wrong to just add a relicensing provision. The differences should be discussed and their implications understood first.

]]> By: EUPL.it segnalato su OSS Watch Team Blog http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-268 EUPL.it segnalato su OSS Watch Team Blog Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:50:45 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-268 [...] la Oxford University Computer Services, ha segnalato il sito “EUPL.IT” sull’OSS Watch Team Blog, all’interno di un post intitolato “Guest post:2010 – Threats to copyleft“. [...] [...] la Oxford University Computer Services, ha segnalato il sito “EUPL.IT” sull’OSS Watch Team Blog, all’interno di un post intitolato “Guest post:2010 – Threats to copyleft“. [...]

]]> By: P-E. Schmitz http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-267 P-E. Schmitz Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:14:58 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-267 Well, Matt, I do not think so: If the primary license of a component in a combined work is AGPLv3, the purpose of interoperability provision (with the EUPL in my example) would be to enable licensing the whole combined work under EUPL (which is an “Affero” license) and under AGPLv3 (and not GPLv3 in this case). In general, interoperability should not modify the primary licence of a component. Well, Matt, I do not think so: If the primary license of a component in a combined work is AGPLv3, the purpose of interoperability provision (with the EUPL in my example) would be to enable licensing the whole combined work under EUPL (which is an “Affero” license) and under AGPLv3 (and not GPLv3 in this case). In general, interoperability should not modify the primary licence of a component.

]]> By: Matt McCutchen http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-266 Matt McCutchen Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:40:42 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-266 GPLv3 and AGPLv3 material can be combined, but the combination is effectively under the AGPLv3 and is subject to the special requirement that source be available to users interacting with the program over a network. Allowing the combined work to be relicensed as GPLv3, as suggested, would defeat the purpose of the AGPLv3. GPLv3 and AGPLv3 material can be combined, but the combination is effectively under the AGPLv3 and is subject to the special requirement that source be available to users interacting with the program over a network. Allowing the combined work to be relicensed as GPLv3, as suggested, would defeat the purpose of the AGPLv3.

]]> By: Fr. Michael http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-265 Fr. Michael Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:23:40 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-265 It seems indeed a pity that – due to licence incompatibility, strong copyleft software modules licensed under GPLv2 or v3 would be pushed out of combined works delivered to governments! Producing such collateral damage was certainly not the original purpose of copyleft (aimed to protect the free software community from their copyright appropriation). In such cases, – I mean the production of combined works, It would indeed be appropriate to extend interoperability between copyleft licenses. I fear that bringing even a small modification to licences like the GPLv3 would be a huge job. However, does the FSF care about what is happening in Europe? It seems indeed a pity that – due to licence incompatibility, strong copyleft software modules licensed under GPLv2 or v3 would be pushed out of combined works delivered to governments! Producing such collateral damage was certainly not the original purpose of copyleft (aimed to protect the free software community from their copyright appropriation). In such cases, – I mean the production of combined works, It would indeed be appropriate to extend interoperability between copyleft licenses. I fear that bringing even a small modification to licences like the GPLv3 would be a huge job. However, does the FSF care about what is happening in Europe?

]]> By: Neolex AB http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Neolex AB Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:20:35 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-263 The compatibility issue is indeed a significant problem. Our audits have shown that roughly one half of open source projects we audit suffer from some sort of licensing incompatibility issues, with about one fifth suffering from serious problems. For a few examples, see the OSS IPR Database at http://oss-ipr-database.com/ (we started posting summaries of our audits there to help spread knowledge of the problem). The compatibility issue is indeed a significant problem. Our audits have shown that roughly one half of open source projects we audit suffer from some sort of licensing incompatibility issues, with about one fifth suffering from serious problems.

For a few examples, see the OSS IPR Database at http://oss-ipr-database.com/ (we started posting summaries of our audits there to help spread knowledge of the problem).

]]> By: Mogh http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/comment-page-1/#comment-262 Mogh Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:21:21 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/03/05/guest-post-2010-threats-to-copyleft/#comment-262 It's another example of software method patents, the threat is to everyone, developers and users. I believe they went for the patent(s) because the whole patent battle is a game won by those that get it first with the USPTO, as it is. It’s another example of software method patents, the threat is to everyone, developers and users. I believe they went for the patent(s) because the whole patent battle is a game won by those that get it first with the USPTO, as it is.

]]>