Additional restrictions on derivative works

Posted Feb 15, 2014 18:06 UTC (Sat) by mgraesslin (guest, #78959)
In reply to: Additional restrictions on derivative works by sebas
Parent article: Ubuntu Community Council statement on Canonical package licensing

I would really like to get the opinion of the Software Freedom Law Center or RMS whether binary packages are a derivative work. My personal feeling is that it is a derivative work and I would feel fooled for my work I put into GPL based software if it were otherwise. If it's not a derivative work I think we have a case for a GPLv4.

Additional restrictions on derivative works

Posted Feb 15, 2014 19:16 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I would really like to get the opinion of the Software Freedom Law Center or RMS whether binary packages are a derivative work.

Since the GPL wouldn't prevent binary-only distribution if binary packages aren't a derivative work, it's clear what RMS's opinion is. (Of course, that's just an opinion -- license authors don't get to say what constitutes a derivative work, only lawyers and judges working from the entirely reasonable position that software is basically like the books and plays that copyright was written to work with. Oh wait.)

Additional restrictions on derivative works

Posted Feb 15, 2014 19:17 UTC (Sat) by JMB (guest, #74439) [Link] (1 responses)

AFAIK RMS/SFLC/FSF would be concerned about missing freedom for users in first place - not freedom of merchandising parties or authors. Their point is copyleft.
Ubuntu/Canonical may have several valid points to grant another distribution to use their binary packages on their servers - bandwidth (they have to pay) and branding (if e.g. a Mint installation has trouble due to Ubuntu binary packages, it may not be the fault of the packages but core changes in Mint).
As Ubuntu comes with source, GPL is fulfilled and that can be used without licensing on the server of the derivative distributions - which seems to be the case for the RHEL clones.
A GPLv4 to force free usage of infrastructure by competitors is not on FSF/SFLC agenda I suppose.
Using also binary parts without source (not under GPL license) or artwork with copyright or making defaults restricting users' freedom for convenience is a different story - but legally correct (IANAL).
The only question here is if the Mint developers are happy or have problems with the outcome.

Additional restrictions on derivative works

Posted Feb 16, 2014 19:54 UTC (Sun) by mgraesslin (guest, #78959) [Link]

> AFAIK RMS/SFLC/FSF would be concerned about missing freedom for users in first place - not freedom of merchandising parties or authors. Their point is copyleft.

Ah I hope that doesn't come around the wrong way because I commented from an author perspective without clearly saying what I meant. I'm of course concerned about the freedom for users - in particular the 2nd freedom to "redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor". My perspective as an author is that I want that all my users have that freedom and I would feel fooled if I have to realize that there is a way to take that freedom away.