In message <20090628182025.GF14780.RemoveThis@const.famille.thibault.fr>, Samuel
Thibault <sthibault.RemoveThis@debian.org> writes
>Hello,
>
>I would like to package a software which includes some dtd modules
>licensed under the MusicXML 2.0 license [1]. It looks like a free
>license, but something catched my attention:
>
>`No one other than Recordare LLC has the right to modify this
>Agreement.'
>
>which I understand as not allowing re-licensing.
Err, no.
The GPL does exactly the same thing, except not explicitly. As I
understand it, Recordare are saying "these are the terms we are making
this stuff available to you on, and only we can change those terms". If
I make stuff available to you under the GPL, then no-one other than me
has the right to change those terms (ie, in Recordare's words, "modify
this agreement").
Oh - and the GPL does NOT allow re-licensing, either! What it allows you
to do (and what this licence probably does - I haven't analysed it) is
to add code under a compatible licence. You haven't changed the licence
on the existing code, so the derived work is only distributable on those
terms which intersect the two licences. What the GPL demands here is
that the GPL always be a subset of the intersect, so that anybody can
safely assume the GPL applies to the whole work.
>
>The thing is: these dtd modules are referenced to by a GPL dtd (which
>also references an MPL 1.1 dtd), like this:
>
><!ENTITY % laDtdMusique SYSTEM "partwise.dtd" >
><!ENTITY % laDtdXHTML SYSTEM "xhtml11.dtd" >
>
>The dtd is eventually used by a GPL/LGPL java application. My concern
>is whether the GPL has to propagate down to the MusicXML 2.0 dtd being
>used, as that would require re-licensing. What do people think about
>it?
These references are "executed" by the user, so actually I would say
that the GPL is irrelevant here - the GPL does not place any
restrictions on the end user, and the files being distributed, while
they *reference* other GPL files, they do not *contain* GPL code
therefore they are "mere aggregation" as far as the GPL and copyright
law goes.
Oh - and as I said - the GPL does *not* *permit* re-licensing, so this
entire argument has to be flawed, anyway.
>
>Samuel
>[1]: http://www.recordare.com/dtds/license.html
>
I think you need a little deeper understanding of the GPL. Read, learn
and inwardly digest the part where it says "when you pass on a copy that
you have received, the recipient receives a licence from the original
copyright holder" (yes I know that's not an exact quote). That -
*intentionally* - cuts the distributor out of the loop as far as
copyright law is concerned. So if you modify a GPL program and then pass
it on, any licences, restrictions, whatever that you apply, are ONLY
relevant in so far as they apply to stuff for which *you* hold the
copyright.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony.RemoveThis@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux