Re: Wasting our Freedom

[Hannah Schroeter <hannah@schlund.de>]

Hello!

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:57:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> >[...]

>> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
>> >license notice
>> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
>> >derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
>> >every protectable element still in the distributed work.

>> But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed
>> works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms.

>No, I'm sorry, this is not correct. The GPL gives you the right to remove
>the BSD license. Read the GPL and please tell me where it says you must keep
>the BSD license notice intact.

Do *you* read the GPL and tell me where exactly it does *explicitly*
allow to change license notices at all. Ya know, that right is reserved
by law and must be *explicitly* granted. So just not explicitly
forbidding it isn't enough.

>[...]

>But in the case of a dual-licensed work, you can obtain the right to modify
>or distribute it from the GPL. In that case, you can totally ignore anything
>the BSD license says. You are under no obligation to comply with it.

>As for copyright law prohibiting it, the GPL is quite clear about allowing
>it. The GPL permits all modifications except those it specifically restricts
>(and none of those rules would prohibit removing a BSD license).

It permits modifications of the *work*, but not of the license.
(Re)Licensing is a *seperate* reserved right of copyright holders.

>[...]

>Copyright law permits you to impose all kinds of restrictions on what people
>can do with your work.

No. Copyright reserves rights. Copyright imposes *all* restrictions by
itself. You need to explicitly relinguish the restrictions for others to
be allowed to do just nearly *anything* (except fair use rights) with
the work.

>However, when you offer a work under the GPL, you
>lose any right to insist that the work remain in any particular form or
>contain any particular elements, except the GPL itself. The GPL grants
>modification rights limited only by the restrictions in the GPL itself.

It grants modification rights to the *work*, but not modification of
license (relicensing).

>You cannot use any form of subterfuge to get something into a GPL-compatible
>file that I cannot remove, by any means. (Other than the GPL license, of
>course.) See GPL section 6.

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
  Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
  original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
  these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
  this License.

Now, the copyright holder hirself can exercise any rights anyway, as zie
doesn't need any license at all, anyway. And then, you just are not
allowed to restrict *rights granted herein*. But the *rights granted
herein* do not include relicensing (or where does the GPL explicitly
grant the right of relicensing?). So one *may* restrict relicensing.
In fact relicensing is restricted by "default" (law).

>DS

Kind regards,

Hannah.