Grokbase › Groups › Perl › artistic2 › April 2006
FAQ
Maybe I'm just not reading this right, but I don't see the point of section 13.

Given 4(c)ii

"a license that permits the licensee to freely copy, modify and redistribute the Modified Version using the same licensing terms that apply to the copy that the licensee received, and requires that the Source form of the Modified Version, and of any works derived from it, be made freely available in that license fees are prohibited but Distributor Fees are allowed."

Can't I do an end run around section 13, by picking an alternate license that
meets 4(c)ii but doesn't have the patent stuff from section 13? For example
GPL v2.

If not, how can I link GPL code?

If so, what's the point of terminating their license if they can just pick a
license that won't terminate?

mock

Search Discussions

  • Allison Randal at Apr 28, 2006 at 3:48 pm ⇧

    On Apr 26, 2006, at 2:38, mock wrote:

    Can't I do an end run around section 13, by picking an alternate
    license that
    meets 4(c)ii but doesn't have the patent stuff from section 13?
    For example
    GPL v2.
    If anyone did start patent litigation against one of the Perl users
    (and we'd really prefer they don't), and triggered section 13, then
    their right to redistribute under 4(c)(ii) is revoked along with the
    rest of the license.

    You have to have copyright (because you own the package or because
    someone granted rights to you) before you can distribute to anyone.

    Allison
  • Nicholas Clark at Apr 28, 2006 at 4:01 pm ⇧

    On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:48:27AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
    On Apr 26, 2006, at 2:38, mock wrote:

    Can't I do an end run around section 13, by picking an alternate
    license that
    meets 4(c)ii but doesn't have the patent stuff from section 13?
    For example
    GPL v2.
    If anyone did start patent litigation against one of the Perl users
    (and we'd really prefer they don't), and triggered section 13, then
    their right to redistribute under 4(c)(ii) is revoked along with the
    rest of the license.

    You have to have copyright (because you own the package or because
    someone granted rights to you) before you can distribute to anyone.
    But this revocation cannot chain, surely?

    If

    1: Company A downloads source from TPF
    2: Company A redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Company B
    3: Company B redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Companies C,D,E
    4: Company B unhelpfully starts patent litigation against someone

    then as Company B obtained the source code under GPLv2, it hasn't broken any
    terms of that agreement, so can continue to distribute.

    Nicholas Clark
  • Mock at May 1, 2006 at 10:17 am ⇧

    On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
    On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:48:27AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
    On Apr 26, 2006, at 2:38, mock wrote:

    Can't I do an end run around section 13, by picking an alternate
    license that
    meets 4(c)ii but doesn't have the patent stuff from section 13?
    For example
    GPL v2.
    If anyone did start patent litigation against one of the Perl users
    (and we'd really prefer they don't), and triggered section 13, then
    their right to redistribute under 4(c)(ii) is revoked along with the
    rest of the license.

    You have to have copyright (because you own the package or because
    someone granted rights to you) before you can distribute to anyone.
    But this revocation cannot chain, surely?

    If

    1: Company A downloads source from TPF
    2: Company A redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Company B
    3: Company B redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Companies C,D,E
    4: Company B unhelpfully starts patent litigation against someone

    then as Company B obtained the source code under GPLv2, it hasn't broken any
    terms of that agreement, so can continue to distribute.

    Nicholas Clark
    And correspondingly, if it does chain, then it was not truly available under
    the GPLv2, as that license does not allow you to revoke based on patent
    litigation.

    As I said, this seems to mean that the artistic v2 as it currently stands is
    either incompatible with the GPLv2 or Section 13 is effectively meaningless,
    as any idiot would set up the chain as described above.

    mock
  • Allison Randal at May 1, 2006 at 6:53 pm ⇧
    FYI, some answers to some questions are running through a lawyer
    before I publish them on the public mailing list, which is the reason
    for the delay.
    On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:

    But this revocation cannot chain, surely?
    This is a question we already thought through, and it's not a
    problem. But, more later.

    Allison
  • Allison Randal at May 3, 2006 at 10:26 pm ⇧
    And, the more complete answer:

    It remains to be seen how questions like this would
    play out, when more than one open source license is
    involved. Although we certainly prefer and encourage
    the use of Artistic 2, allowing GPL compatibility is a
    matter of providing flexibility to our users. We've
    drafted Artistic 2 based on specific needs and
    concerns of the Perl community. Perl has a tradition
    of giving users great freedom, and encouraging them
    to use it wisely.

    Allison

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupartistic2 @
categoriesperl
postedApr 26, '06 at 9:39a
activeMay 3, '06 at 10:26p
posts6
users3
websiteperl.org

3 users in discussion

Allison Randal: 3 posts Mock: 2 posts Nicholas Clark: 1 post

Content

People

Support

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase