GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 5:47 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
In reply to: GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement by matthias
Parent article: GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

> What you cannot do is change the license terms you got the code under.

That is not correct. What you cannot do is change the license terms in the code, full stop, *regardless* of where you got it from (unless the license itself allows this, which the GPL doesn't).

If you get code under a dual GPL/Apache license and you decide to distribute it following the terms of the GPL, the person who you distribute it to still has the exact same license on their copy of the code that you had. You can't change that unless you're the sole copyright owner for the code. The recipient can turn around and distribute it to someone else under the Apache license and that's perfectly fine.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 6:11 UTC (Wed) by matthias (subscriber, #94967) [Link] (6 responses)

> What you cannot do is change the license terms in the code, full stop

What do you mean with changing license terms in the code? The license is not in the code but is distributed together with the code. The suggested phrasing of the FSF for GPL3+ licensed programs is:

>> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>> (at your option) any later version.

This is part of the license I get. Just adding a copy of the GPL to the code folder does not assign any license to the code. It clearly states that I may distribute under any later version. Thus it is perfectly fine for me to distribute it under GPL4, exchange 3 by 4 in the above text and add a copy of GPL4 to the code. The text in the license (above) explicitly allows me to do this.

Going further, the suggested phrasing of the FSF also implies the the license terms are not in the code:
>> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 8:00 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (2 responses)

For code licensed under a range of licenses (GPLv3+, foo or bar, etc) you are always allowed to release changes under a subset of the range (GPLv4+, bar, only, etc).

And, that is not easily revertible (downstream actors in the supply chain are stuck with your subsetting even if they don’t agree with it).

If you do not change anything downstream actors are also legally bound by your subsetting *but* can bypass it if they manage to source from higher in the supply chain.

Enlarging the licensing range is never legal unless you are the copyright holder of all the parts for which the range will be increased.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 8:21 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> Enlarging the licensing range is never legal unless you are the copyright holder of all the parts for which the range will be increased.

REDUCING the licencing range is never legal/effective unless you are *A* copyright holder. In your scenario, you are not.

Cheers,
Wol

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 18:50 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Whoops. Sorry I didn't read your comment accurately. You said you released your changes under a restricted licence, so you are not a distributor but a modifier.

Cheers,
Wol

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 8:19 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

> This is part of the license I get. Just adding a copy of the GPL to the code folder does not assign any license to the code. It clearly states that I may distribute under any later version. Thus it is perfectly fine for me to distribute it under GPL4, exchange 3 by 4 in the above text and add a copy of GPL4 to the code. The text in the license (above) explicitly allows me to do this.

NO IT DOES NOT. This looks like trolling to me!

The licence does NOT allow you to change the terms of the licence. The GRANT OF LICENCE allows you to distribute under GPL4, but if you are not the copyright holder you cannot change the LICENCE to GPL4+

The licence, and the grant of licence, are two different things!

Cheers,
Wol

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 13:13 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you're missing that the legal profession cares about the "color" of bits. It doesn't make sense to you or I, but it's something that matters there. If they get it through a "GPLv4-only" filter, they only have GPLv4 rights. If they go one step up (to where you got it), they'd get the same bits, but under a different "license color" and can then use the GPLv3 terms for the same bits. Most of the time, a defense of "I got it directly from upstream" would be a defense unless one actually keeps logs of how each byte got into their supply chain (versus verification that what is there is the same as some checkpoint).

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 2, 2021 16:28 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Except that it doesn't work that way.

You need to separate the licence itself, GPL3, or GPL4 - but most definitely not GPL3+ because there is no such thing - from the grant of licence.

All this stuff about "any later version" goes in the COPYING file, which you have no right to change unless you yourself have modified the software and have a personal copyright interest in the software.

If I distribute UNmodifed GPL3+ software to you, using the GPL4, that means you have the COPYING file which gives you permission to distribute under GPL3.

The lawyers can argue "color of bits" till the cows come home, but the fact remains that if I give you an UNmodified copy, you are in possession of a file, WRITTEN BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, that gives *you* permission to copy under the GPL3.

Oh - and even if I modify the software, and distribute it under GPL4, if I leave the COPYING file saying GPL3+, then I have given you permission to copy my code under GPL3 even though I used GPL4.

Cheers,
Wol