[SLL] Save Novell!

[Russell Evans]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:43:28 -0700
Glenn Stone <technoshaman at liawol.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:53:49AM -0700, Jules Agee wrote:
> >Russell Evans wrote:
> >> I don't understand licensing, but I would think that Debian
> >> maintainer patches could be gpl v3ed very quickly, quickly verses all
> >> the projects that make up a distribution moving to gpl v3 at the
> >> project level. I also think most packages in Debian are patched
> >> by/for Debian, part of the reason it takes so long for a new Debian
> >> version to come out, so this possible would be effective in killing
> >> the deal. I don't know, maybe you can't mix the licenses this way?
> >
> >Not with GPL. If you have a GPL v2 package, you can't patch it and
> >license the patch with GPL v3. Modifications are licensed under the same
> >GPL version as the program you're modifying. The big initial move to
> >GPL3 will be all the FSF software. Those packages alone will be very
> >significant in their effect on distributors like Novell.
> 
> That's not strictly true:
> 
> From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft.html, Terms and Conditions:
> 
> 9.  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
>     the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be
>     similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
>     address new problems or concerns.
> 
> 	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. 
> 
> -- end quote -- 
> 
> A simple *patch* probably can't be relicensed... but a work *containing* a
> patch (and thus a version number bump) is a derivative wwork and thus can be
> relicensed under GPL v.3.  Since most distros (Deb in particular) distribute
> full packages and not just patches, they're quite warranted in v.3'ing their
> works.  Matter of fact, you could simply have the "patch" be "replaced GPL2
> with GPL3"... that would be quite sufficient.  IMNASHO, IANAL, EIEIO.

I don't think the ""patch" be "replaced GPL2 with GPL3"" would work by a third party (i.e. non-copyright holder) unless the package and programs where renamed as in thunderbird to icedove, and then I would think it would really iffy thing to do. Even moving a patched version to gpl v3 as a derivative work seems iffy unless a significant portion of the program was rewritten or the project abandoned. IMNASHO, IANAL, EIEIO. and anything else. 

I really was thinking of the patch as a new work, and therefore separate and able to be licensed by the patch author who would have a copyright on the patch. To include the patch, as in use the deb in a Debian derived distribution, you would need to honor the license.     

I personally don't think FSF has copyrights on enough projects to force the issue. I can't find the number, but I believe FSF has copyright control on less than a hundred projects and most of those projects are mature enough not to have been updated in years. GCC seems to be the biggest stick or carrot. 

Thank you
Russell