GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 3, 2021 8:56 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
In reply to: GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement by Wol
Parent article: GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

No, I get your point - the original copyright holder has added GPL4 terms by saying that it's licenced under GPL3+ terms, where 4 is one licence the original copyright holders chose via the "or any later version" language.

Because I can't change the terms, the people I distribute to still get the code under GPL3+ terms, even though I complied with GPL4 terms to get the code to them. However, it is possible that I pass on the code as-is (complete with GPL3+ terms) in a way that leaves the recipients able to comply with GPL4 for further distribution but not GPL3. The code is still GPL3+, and if another party gets involved to share the code, then they can use GPL3 terms, but they can't redistribute what they got from me under GPL3 terms because they have no way of meeting those terms.

This is more obvious with code dual-licenced under the original 4 clause BSD or GPLv2; if I comply with the GPLv2, the advertising clause doesn't kick in (because that's not a GPL term), but downstream recipients can add the required advertising and comply with the BSD terms instead of GPL. If, however, I distribute binaries only and comply with the 4 clause BSD licence, while you have the right to distribute under GPLv2 or 4-clause BSD licences, you can't exercise your GPLv2 rights without further intervention because you don't have the corresponding source to offer.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 3, 2021 22:20 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

Ah, I get it now.

In other words, my ability to distribute has been compromised by the action of others ... imho (as you see from my comments elsewhere) this is a bug, but there you go ...

Cheers,
Wol

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 4, 2021 8:37 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (3 responses)

The interesting thing is that it's a bug that comes out of having multiple licences. Each of the individual licences the copyright holder offers you is set up such that if you have received the code under the licence, then you are in a position to distribute under that self-same licence (and is thus "bug-free" in this sense. The fun only comes in when licences with differing terms are on offer, and your upstream distributor can choose which terms to comply with; they can choose terms such that you don't have what you need to comply with alternative terms.

And, of course, a practical lawyer will not let you change your choice of terms if you can at all avoid it - if I gave you a binary under 4-clause BSD or GPLv2, and you got the "corresponding source" from elsewhere, how do you demonstrate that the source you have corresponds to the binary you have? At least if you got corresponding source from me, you have a legal argument around provenance and good faith action that will protect you from the worst consequences of a mismatch; if you get them via separate routes, then the consequences of a mismatch are all on you.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 4, 2021 16:08 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (2 responses)

It’s not a bug. AND is not the same thing as OR.

If you distribute things under X AND Y the clauses of X AND the clauses of Y apply simultaneously.

If you distribute things under X OR Y (as it the case with GPLx OR later), the clauses of X are totally independent from the clauses of Y, choosing one MAY invalidate the other, and there is NO reason for both to survive a distribution step.

Which is why X AND Y is a single license and X OR Y are two independent documents.

If you want X OR Y to survive distribution, you need a SEPARATE license that basically says “distribution of this material is subject to X OR Y with the aditionnal restriction that further distribution must also be subject to X o Y”.

Which would be tricky to do with the GPL because of its “no further restriction” clause.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 4, 2021 16:16 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

Also, this would be tricky for permissive licenses, because such a separate licensing document would turn any permissive license into a copyleft license, and void the possibility to integrate permissively licensed code in closed software.

Which is why, X OR Y does not survive distribution and it is likely pointless to try to make it survive distribution.

GCC drops its copyright-assignment requirement

Posted Jun 4, 2021 16:58 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

Which would be tricky to do with the GPL because of its “no further restriction” clause.

As long as you are the original copyright holder, you are free to create whatever license you choose for your own software. You are, as you say above, effectively creating a new license, and that means you can add whatever terms you like. The problem with the "no further restriction" clause will only matter if you try to combine your code with someone else's code that's only under the GPL.