I must say I'm a bit dumbfounded. I sent an email to the Free Software
Foundation asking a couple of question about the LGPL license, as its terms
are a bit unclear on a couple of situations. I mentioned that I work for
a company which creates Windows and iPhone apps.

  Apparently that was a mistake. They outright *refuse* to answer my
questions because I'm a non-free software developer unless I pay them
$150 for a 30-minute consultation. (They explicitly state that if I don't
pay for the service, then sorry, no banana, I'll have to be content with
what they already offer in their public website.)

  Of course they have the right to do that. I'm still a bit dumbfounded
by it, though. Apparently their concept of "free" doesn't extend to people
developing "non-free" software.

  These were my questions. Does anyone know the answer to them (or know
some place I could ask the questions without being required to pay 150
dollars to get the answers)?

1) If I understand section 4 of the license (version 3) correctly, for
a closed-source program to comply with the LGPL when it uses a library
distributed under that license, it's enough for the program to use a
dynamically loadable version of the library (such as a .dll file in
Windows or a .so file in Linux), which it distributes with the program
binaries (as this allows a user to create a modified version of the
library and have the program use it, as long as the library stays
interface compatible).

This is fine when distributing eg. a Windows or Linux program. What
happens, however, if the program is for a platform where the user
cannot easily modify any dynamically loadable library which comes with
the program, such as the case with many hand-held devices (such as the
iPhone or the PlayStation Portable)? Or to put it in simpler words:
Can an iPhone or PlayStation Portable program use an LGPL library?

2) Regarding section 3 of the LGPLv3: What happens if the entire LGPL
library code is in the header files and there are no actual source
files from which a dynamically-loadable module could be compiled
(which is quite common with heavily-templated C++ libraries)? Section
3 of the license leads me to conclude that in this particular case the
clause 4d of the license doesn't really apply. Is this correct?

If this conclusion is not correct, then how can the program comply
with the LGPL in such a case?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Apparently their concept of "free" doesn't extend to people
> developing "non-free" software.

You hadn't already figured that out? :-) If they wanted free software to be 
usable by commercial developers, they wouldn't have made the GPL. They would 
have stuck with really-free software.

That said, I'm surprised they're willing to give you legal advice for that 
little, let alone without paying them at all.  I wonder how it would be 
delivered: From a lawyer? If so, that's cheap for advice coming from the 
lawyers of the only people who would be interested in suing you. If not, 
then it sounds like they may very well be "practicing law without a license."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You hadn't already figured that out? :-) If they wanted free software to be 
> usable by commercial developers, they wouldn't have made the GPL. They would 
> have stuck with really-free software.

  Well, LGPL software can be used in commercial software with only minor
restrictions.

> That said, I'm surprised they're willing to give you legal advice for that 
> little, let alone without paying them at all.  I wonder how it would be 
> delivered: From a lawyer? If so, that's cheap for advice coming from the 
> lawyers of the only people who would be interested in suing you. If not, 
> then it sounds like they may very well be "practicing law without a license."

  From the tone of the email I understood that if I had claimed to be
developing free software, they would have answered my questions, but since
I'm a non-free software developer, then sorry.

  Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding, please
correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
software developers."

  I understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
answered my questions free of charge.

  And yes, they explicitly refuse to answer the questions:

  "If you do not want to pay for this service, I can only suggest
you carefully review the resources we provide about licensing at
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> and refer to your legal
counsel."

  Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.
Craft a somewhat ambiguous software usage license on the basis of
freedom, and then outright refuse to clarify it without monetary
compensation, and seemingly only because the person who asked the
question happens to be a non-free software developer.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Well, LGPL software can be used in commercial software with only minor
> restrictions.

Relatively speaking, yes. But that's why they call it the "Lesser" license. :-)

>   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
> proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding, please
> correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
> software developers."

I can sympathize. If you're going to get paid for using what they gave for 
free, then you can afford to pay them to find out what they mean.

Now, if you're developing on a proprietary platform but you're going to give 
the software away for free, I'd suspect they might be more willing to help.

> and refer to your legal counsel."

Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't say that in the first place, free or not. 
Otherwise, they have lawyers working for you for free.

>   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.

Maybe you live in a country where people don't get in trouble for giving 
free legal advice. :-)

> Craft a somewhat ambiguous software usage license on the basis of
> freedom, and then outright refuse to clarify it without monetary
> compensation, and seemingly only because the person who asked the
> question happens to be a non-free software developer.

Seems fair. you're asking them to work for you for free, so you can safely 
use their freely-offered software, to make money that you won't give any of 
to them. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b6a1dd5@news.povray.org...

>   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
> proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding,
please
> correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
> software developers."
>
>   I understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
> answered my questions free of charge.

Wouldn't the advice then be inapplicable to your case?

>   And yes, they explicitly refuse to answer the questions:
>
>   "If you do not want to pay for this service, I can only suggest
> you carefully review the resources we provide about licensing at
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> and refer to your legal
> counsel."
>
>   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.

Why? They promote free software. Not free legal services, nor free lunch.
IOW, I don't expect them to provide me with a free lunch if I knock on their
door.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 1) If I understand section 4 of the license (version 3) correctly, for
> a closed-source program to comply with the LGPL when it uses a library
> distributed under that license, it's enough for the program to use a
> dynamically loadable version of the library (such as a .dll file in
> Windows or a .so file in Linux), which it distributes with the program
> binaries (as this allows a user to create a modified version of the
> library and have the program use it, as long as the library stays
> interface compatible).
> 
> This is fine when distributing eg. a Windows or Linux program. What
> happens, however, if the program is for a platform where the user
> cannot easily modify any dynamically loadable library which comes with
> the program, such as the case with many hand-held devices (such as the
> iPhone or the PlayStation Portable)? Or to put it in simpler words:
> Can an iPhone or PlayStation Portable program use an LGPL library?

LGPLv2, yes. But the *main* purpose of the (L)GPLv3 is that if, for example, 
the device only runs software that is digitally signed by a certain party, 
then if you give me a GPLv3 binary to run on that device, then you not only 
have to give me the source code. You also need to give me any needed 
cryptographic keys so I can sign my modified versions (without that 
signature, the device would refuse to run my modified software; so I'm not 
really having the freedom to modify it).

The Apple terms of service say the license of the software can't have a 
requirement to give such cryptographic keys.

"You further represent and warrant to Apple that the licensing terms 
governing Your Application, or governing any third party code or FOSS 
included in Your Application, will be consistent with and not conflict with 
the digital signing or content protection aspects of the Program or any of 
the terms, conditions or requirements of the Program or this Agreement. In 
particular, such licensing terms will not purport to require Apple (or its 
agents) to disclose or make available any of the keys, authorization codes, 
methods, procedures, data or other information related to the Security 
Solution, digital signing or digital rights management mechanisms utilized 
as part of the Program."

Even though it's written broadly, this could be considered a *direct* attack 
on the new "features" of the GPLv3.

In short, the GPL *version 3* (and not version 2) and the AppStore terms of 
use are explicitly incompatible. You won't have to worry much about 
violating the LGPLv3 library license by putting your app in the AppStore, 
because *Apple won't let your app into the AppStore* if it has GPLv3 code.

If the library you want to use is actually LGPLv2, the situation on the 
iPhone would change completely. Is the library LGPLv3, or did you just 
mention v3 to make sure everyone was looking at the same thing when you 
referred to a section number?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
> > proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding, please
> > correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
> > software developers."

> I can sympathize. If you're going to get paid for using what they gave for 
> free, then you can afford to pay them to find out what they mean.

  Most LGPL libraries out there are not owned by the FSF. It's not like it's
*their* loss.

  (Besides, the whole point of the LGPL license is for the libraries to be
usable in proprietary software. They explicitly state it as such.)

> > and refer to your legal counsel."

> Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't say that in the first place, free or not. 
> Otherwise, they have lawyers working for you for free.

  It's not like I asked for legally binding consultation per se. I just
wanted some clarifications.

> >   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.

> Maybe you live in a country where people don't get in trouble for giving 
> free legal advice. :-)

  But they should know their *own* license. Or is it so that they cannot
formulate official opinions on their own license without asking their
lawyers first?

> > Craft a somewhat ambiguous software usage license on the basis of
> > freedom, and then outright refuse to clarify it without monetary
> > compensation, and seemingly only because the person who asked the
> > question happens to be a non-free software developer.

> Seems fair. you're asking them to work for you for free, so you can safely 
> use their freely-offered software, to make money that you won't give any of 
> to them. :-)

  If they don't want to get "abused" like that, then why did they create
the LGPL license in the first place?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b6a1dd5@news.povray.org...

> >   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
> > proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding,
> please
> > correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
> > software developers."
> >
> >   I understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
> > answered my questions free of charge.

> Wouldn't the advice then be inapplicable to your case?

  The LGPL terms don't change depending on whether the software using
the LGPL library is proprietary/commercial or not. It applies equally to
all software.

> >   And yes, they explicitly refuse to answer the questions:
> >
> >   "If you do not want to pay for this service, I can only suggest
> > you carefully review the resources we provide about licensing at
> > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> and refer to your legal
> > counsel."
> >
> >   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.

> Why? They promote free software. Not free legal services, nor free lunch.
> IOW, I don't expect them to provide me with a free lunch if I knock on their
> door.

  The implication was that if I had claimed that I'm making free software,
they could have answered my questions for free. That feels a bit biased,
and thus wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> If the library you want to use is actually LGPLv2, the situation on the 
> iPhone would change completely. Is the library LGPLv3, or did you just 
> mention v3 to make sure everyone was looking at the same thing when you 
> referred to a section number?

  I mentioned v3 mainly so that my references to section numbers would
be unambiuous.

  There isn't currently any specific library I'm interested in, but it's
a real possibility that in the future the situation might come up when
I have to ponder about licenses. I'm especially curious about the case
when the LGPL library has only headers and no compilable source files
(which is often the case with heavily templated C++ libraries).

  There are also some LGPL libraries out there which might become handy in
the future (not necessarily on the iPhone, but on other projects), such as
this one: http://tangentsoft.net/mysql++/ (although it specifically contains
the version 2 of the LGPL license text).

  Also, having created a relatively popular LGPL library myself, it would
be good to know what I'm actually using.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/03/10 19:02, Warp wrote:
>> I can sympathize. If you're going to get paid for using what they gave for 
>> free, then you can afford to pay them to find out what they mean.
> 
>   Most LGPL libraries out there are not owned by the FSF. It's not like it's
> *their* loss.

	Well, it's their loss in time, which to them is money.

>> Seems fair. you're asking them to work for you for free, so you can safely 
>> use their freely-offered software, to make money that you won't give any of 
>> to them. :-)
> 
>   If they don't want to get "abused" like that, then why did they create
> the LGPL license in the first place?

	Demand.

-- 
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:07:33 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are
>   a
> proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding,
> please correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to
> non-free software developers."

"No, you're right, I do develop proprietary software professionally, but 
I'm looking to participate in a free software development project on my 
own time and want to clearly understand the license."

Unless, of course, you want to use LGPL code in a proprietary package, in 
which case, their request doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:06:26 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   The implication was that if I had claimed that I'm making free
>   software,
> they could have answered my questions for free. That feels a bit biased,
> and thus wrong.

They have no way of knowing if your true intention is to look for a way 
to circumvent the terms of the license; if they give you advice that then 
could be used to circumvent those terms *for free*, then you can claim 
you asked them.

If they ask for payment, though, that becomes a filter for those who are 
just looking for ways around the terms of the license.

Note that I'm absolutely not saying that it is your intention to 
circumvent the license; but they don't have the luxury of assuming 
anything.  There are plenty of people out there looking to tear down the 
GPL in all its forms, and if the *help* someone do that, then they've 
kinda defeated their own purpose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:19:43 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Also, having created a relatively popular LGPL library myself, it
>   would
> be good to know what I'm actually using.

Reference that library in your communications, then, and make your 
questions relevant to work you've released under the license.  I suspect 
they'd not ask for a consultation fee in that instance.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b6a39b1@news.povray.org...

> > >   I understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
> > > answered my questions free of charge.

> > Wouldn't the advice then be inapplicable to your case?

>   The LGPL terms don't change depending on whether the software using
> the LGPL library is proprietary/commercial or not. It applies equally to
> all software.

Your question was:

<quote>
1) If I understand section 4 of the license (version 3) correctly, for
a closed-source program to comply with the LGPL when it uses a library
distributed under that license, it's enough for the program to use a [...]
</quote>

If you claim to be an open-source developer, the clarificiation they provide
would not be for a "...closed-source program to comply..." but for an
"...open-source program to comply...", unless your wording is superfluous.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> I can sympathize. If you're going to get paid for using what they gave for 
>> free, then you can afford to pay them to find out what they mean.
> 
>   Most LGPL libraries out there are not owned by the FSF. It's not like it's
> *their* loss.

Technically true. For fanatics, false.

>   (Besides, the whole point of the LGPL license is for the libraries to be
> usable in proprietary software. They explicitly state it as such.)

Yes, but they don't like it. :-)

>   It's not like I asked for legally binding consultation per se. I just
> wanted some clarifications.

In some countries, that *is* legally binding consultation.

>>>   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.
> 
>> Maybe you live in a country where people don't get in trouble for giving 
>> free legal advice. :-)
> 
>   But they should know their *own* license. 

I'm sure *they* know the answer.

> Or is it so that they cannot
> formulate official opinions on their own license without asking their
> lawyers first?

I'm sure they already asked their lawyers. They're not going to have their 
lawyers work for you to free.

Having come thru many years of having rich people asking me to work for them 
for free, I can fully understand that.

>   If they don't want to get "abused" like that, then why did they create
> the LGPL license in the first place?

Because the world doesn't work the way they'd want it to. It's the same 
reason they specifically exempt the GCC runtime from the GPL: if they 
didn't, someone would make a proprietary compiler (or even an open one with 
such an exemption) and GCC wouldn't get used by programmers good enough to 
get paid for their work.

Just because they resent it doesn't mean they don't have to. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The implication was that if I had claimed that I'm making free software,
> they could have answered my questions for free. That feels a bit biased,
> and thus wrong.

And only homeless people get free soup here. :-)

Seriously, give them the $150 if you're working on a program you're going to 
sell, or ask your own lawyer for an opinion.

Or are you just complaining about free software rather than looking for a 
solution? :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Seriously, give them the $150 if you're working on a program you're going to 
> sell, or ask your own lawyer for an opinion.

  That's the thing: This was *not* for any project I'm currently developing.
I was not asking on behalf of my company or anything. It *might* become
relevant in the future if I find the need to use an LGPL library in a project.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I must say I'm a bit dumbfounded. I sent an email to the Free Software
> Foundation asking a couple of question about the LGPL license, as its 
> terms
> are a bit unclear on a couple of situations. I mentioned that I work for
> a company which creates Windows and iPhone apps.
>
>  Apparently that was a mistake. They outright *refuse* to answer my
> questions because I'm a non-free software developer unless I pay them
> $150 for a 30-minute consultation. (They explicitly state that if I don't
> pay for the service, then sorry, no banana, I'll have to be content with
> what they already offer in their public website.)

Surely your company would pay up for such issues?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?

  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
a project where an LGPL library is required.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?
>
>  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
> a project where an LGPL library is required.

But the fact you mentioned you worked for a software development company 
looks a bit dodgy (I had assumed it was questions you wanted answered for 
your job too).

Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without 
mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You might 
want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from 
different people.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?
> >
> >  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
> > a project where an LGPL library is required.

> But the fact you mentioned you worked for a software development company 
> looks a bit dodgy (I had assumed it was questions you wanted answered for 
> your job too).

  I suppose I should have kept that information secret rather than
carelessly mention it (as a kind of intro of why I talk about the iPhone
later in the email), but how should I had known? It's not like the FSF
prominently advertises in their webpages that if you say you are working
for a company they won't answer your questions for free.

  For the record, I replied to them with a completely honest and truthful
description of my situation (in other words, I did not ask on behalf of my
company nor because of any current work project, and I myself have published
a significant library under the LGPL (which is why the details of the license
interest me), but it's a real possibility that some time in the future there
might be a need to use some LGPL library for some commercial project as well),
but they haven't replied anything.

  I suppose the implied answer is "tough luck; you work for the enemy and
thus we aren't going to help you".

> Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without 
> mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You might 
> want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from 
> different people.

  Yeah, that wouldn't sound suspicious at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without
>> mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You 
>> might
>> want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from
>> different people.
>
>  Yeah, that wouldn't sound suspicious at all.

I guess it depends how often they get emails about similar questions.  If 
you're the only one they've had for a few weeks on those subjects, then yes, 
it's going to be quite suspicious...

Post a reply to this message

I think the guys at the FSF should realize that if you actually have to ask 
 >them< for counsel instead of using the services of a lawyer that you are 
not doing particulary well and thus don't have much money. And that you are 
dependent on the few bucks you >may< make with your program. Besides - 
people with money usually don't care about laws, they have lawers to 
deceive, bend and pervert the laws as they like. I bet the guys at the FSF 
are not all volunteers but get paid for their work, one way or another.

This reminds me of an internet company here in Germany. I asked them what a 
certain paragraph in their terms and conditions actually meant, giving an 
example and asking if this would be allowed or not. They just answered: we 
do not comment our own contracts - we refuse to tell you what we actually 
mean. But why don't you just sign the contract? No joke!

Post a reply to this message

TC wrote:
> This reminds me of an internet company here in Germany. I asked them what a 
> certain paragraph in their terms and conditions actually meant, giving an 
> example and asking if this would be allowed or not. They just answered: we 
> do not comment our own contracts - we refuse to tell you what we actually 
> mean. But why don't you just sign the contract? No joke! 

Yep. That's very american, too. If they told you, they'd be at risk for 
being sued for giving legal advice without a license. That's exactly why you 
see IANAL all over posts like these.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

This is completely unrelated to the FSF, but it's even more jaw-dropping:

  The SQLite library (one of the most popular SQL database libraries) is
distributed under "public domain". In other words, it's "freer than free".

  Of course not all jurisdictions in the world recognize "public domain"
as a valid usage license nor the right of an author to publish something
with no copyright. For these cases the SQLite project offers an actual
usage license.

  The catch? If you want it, you'll have to pay the modest price of 1000
US dollars.

  I can't even begin to comprehend the logic behind this. Basically they
are saying: "If your country does not recognize public domain as a valid
software license, then you'll have to pay us $1000 if you want to use our
software. If your country does recognize it, then you can use it in any
way you want for whatever purpose you want at no cost whatsoever."

  I just can't understand the logic. If they want to offer an actual
copyright license for those who live in a country which doesn't recognize
PD as a valid one, then why not just offer something like the MIT license
or whatever, which is almost equivalent to PD? Instead, you have to pay
them 1000 dollars for a license.

  I'm speechless, really. Is this some kind of war against countries which
don't recognize PD?

http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm speechless, really. Is this some kind of war against countries which
> don't recognize PD?
> 
> http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1
> 

As is listed, half the reasons this occurs for them is that the user
wants a legal contract and not public domain code. Contracts carry, in
most countries, an extra weight in law that a license is not yet
recognized to have. Because of this, a contract has to be a fair
exchange of value.

If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
the MIT terms.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
> the MIT terms.

  Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
>> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
>> the MIT terms.
> 
>   Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?

Sort of.  You can take Shakespeare and publish it and claim a copyright on 
that particular arrangement of words on the page (e.g., correspondence to 
words with page numbers, illustrations, etc) but you can't re-copyright the 
actual text, so I could publish new Shakespeare.  You can take a photograph 
of some public-domain painting and copyright the photograph, for example.

But you can't copyright the public domain item. Why?  Because I can make 
copies of the public domain version without looking at your copy. You might 
copyright your photo of the statue, but I can make an identical photo of the 
statue without ever having seen your photo.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
>> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
>> the MIT terms.
> 
>   Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?
> 

It isn't re-copyrighting the work. It is relicensing the work, which is
usually allowable under public domain laws. Otherwise, how could you
incorporate some public domain code into work and then distribute under
a commercial license?

In doing this, you are not asserting some rights over the item in the
public domain. The MIT license might need a few words changed, making it
say less about 'I hold copyright on this and authorize' and more 'I am
allowed to authorize this work to be licensed'.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> >> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
> >> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
> >> the MIT terms.
> > 
> >   Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?
> > 

> It isn't re-copyrighting the work. It is relicensing the work, which is
> usually allowable under public domain laws.

  Licensing (including eg. the MIT license) is based on copyright. Thus
if you want to license something, you have to own its copyright.

> Otherwise, how could you
> incorporate some public domain code into work and then distribute under
> a commercial license?

  Your *changes* have copyright, not the original material.

  If one could re-copyright PD works, then anyone could take such a work
and hijack its copyrights for himself, stopping anyone from using it.

  However, if someone takes a PD work and changes it somehow, the changes
have copyright and nobody can use those changes unless given permission.

  Of course in the case of the SQLite library you could go and change
everything and claim copyright on it. How much you have to change in order
for the copyright claim to be enforceable, I don't know.

  But AFAIK it's rather clear that if you don't have copyright, you can't
license it either, because licenses are based on copyright.

> 'I am allowed to authorize this work to be licensed'.

  But are you? And doesn't this depend on the jurisdiction? (Remember, we
are talking, after all, about jurisdictions which don't recognize PD as a
valid software license. This making assumptions about what you can and
cannot do with PD software is kind of moot.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>   Licensing (including eg. the MIT license) is based on copyright. Thus
> if you want to license something, you have to own its copyright.

No. It perfectly suffices to own a license that grants the right to 
"sub-license" the work.

Note that licensing is a legal construct to (non-exclusively) grant 
rights, not deny them. Copyright, on the other hand, is a legal 
construct for denial.

>   If one could re-copyright PD works, then anyone could take such a work
> and hijack its copyrights for himself, stopping anyone from using it.

It's not re-copyrighting - it's re-licensing.

Though I guess you might be right in that a license to use a work, 
granted by a person owning all rights to that work solely due to its PD 
status in their home country, might be considered null and void in a 
country where the concept of PD doesn't exist in the first place.

Then again, I deem it unlikely that anyone would sue you for using that 
work...

Post a reply to this message