[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Jan 28 22:17:33 EST 2012
On Saturday 28 January 2012 21:39:46 Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Ben Finney
> <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> >> If I print the source code in a book, and make a typo, you think I'm
> >> in violation of the GPL?
> > Passing on something that is not the corresponding source would not
> > satisfy the requirements of the GPL, right.
> Corresponding source to what? I'm not talking about 6. Conveying
> Non-Source Forms. I'm talking about 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
> and/or 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
Look at this:
"1. Source Code.
The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work."
> The book, with the source code, is the only distribution. There is no
> binary. Think "PGP: Source Code and Internals" by Philip R.
So, on further thought. Supplying a printed on paper copy of the source would
not count as providing the source as it is not in the preferred form for
"4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it,
in any medium..."
Well, maybe you can supply it on paper and have that count as the preferred
form. I find that a bit odd with all the other lengths they go to.
> >> You need to talk to the FSF. Only the FSF can allow one to combine a
> >> GPL work with a non-GPL work.
> > Hmm, no. Works can be combined and redistributed so long as the licenses
> > are compatible; the FSF doesn't need to get involved, since there are
> > many GPL-compatible licenses already (e.g. the Apache License 2.0).
> But he doesn't want to "dual license the art under by-sa and gpl", and
> he doesn't want to "allow the by-sa work to be converted to a gpl
> work". A work under Apache License 2.0 can be converted to a GPL
> work, at least if you modify it in a way which creates a derivative.
> And a work under LGPL (which is also compatible with GPL) can be
> relicensed under GPL.
> I believe what he's getting at is that you could combine software with
> art such that the art is CC-BY-SA (not GPL) and the software is GPL
> (not CC-BY-SA).
> Seems reasonable. And at least in some cases, I'd say it's already
> legally possible, under the Collection and Aggregate clauses of BY-SA
> and GPL respectively. Making it more clear would, I think, be highly
> dependent on modifying the GPL, though.
Well, I want collections in by-sa handled differently. See:
However, my proposed changes to 4.x would still allow for this to happen with
GPL and other free programs. If we do that in this round. It either works
with the GPL as it stands or the ball is in the FSF's court.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community