GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing [LWN.net]

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 27, 2016 13:38 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing by Wol
Parent article: Winning the copyleft fight

Is there a meaningful distinction between "grant" and "licence"?

The way GPLvX+ works is that it is two stage - and there's a level of indirection:

- The source contains a brief licence, stating the licence is as per a published licence document, e.g. GPLvX "or any later version" (which is a term defined by the GPLvX).

- The licence document itself then defines what that "licence" to use "any later version" means exactly.

These are all conditional permissions granted by the copyright holder - and "permission" is the root meaning of "licence". Without following the conditions necessary for such permission, then one risks infringing the copyright held by the author(s), who may then sue you for damages.

to post comments

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 27, 2016 14:42 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (11 responses)

Yes there is a meaningful distinction between "grant" and "licence". We muddy the water horribly when we use the two words interchangeably.

Like in photography, another bugbear of mine. The terms "aperture" and "f-stop" are used interchangeably, but f-stop is a dimensionless ratio, and *everyone* *else* measures apertures in units of distance.

To be pedantic, the "grant" (usually in the COPYING file) tells you which licence(s) you can use, while the "licence" (in the LICENCE or GPL-LICENCE-V2" file) tells you what you can/must do.

And it's actually very important, because if I grant you the right to use "v2 or later", while you are free to use v3 you MUST tell your recipients "v2 or later" because v3 tells you to!

By the way, can you point me to the text of the GPLv2+ licence? Or the GPLv3+ licence? NO YOU CAN'T. Because it only appears as an advisory paragraph (ie it has no legal force whatsoever) at the ?end? of GPLv2 or GPLv3.

At the end of the day, nobody really cares that much about "the v2+ licence" or "the v3+ licence" because, usually, we have no need to care. But if you want to UNDERSTAND what is actually going on, that's when you need to care, and that's when the distinction is important.

And as I said, it's actually legally quite serious - it is a *breach* *of* *the* *GPL* if you change v2+ to v3+ !!! (on someone else's code, that is - not if you add new code that changes the overall licence on the derived work.)

Cheers,
Wol

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 27, 2016 16:31 UTC (Sat) by Del- (guest, #72641) [Link] (6 responses)

> And it's actually very important, because if I grant you the right to use "v2 or later", while you are free to use v3 you MUST tell your recipients "v2 or later" because v3 tells you to!

Can you point me to where this is stated. I do believe you, but it would be nice to see the writing.

> And as I said, it's actually legally quite serious - it is a *breach* *of* *the* *GPL* if you change v2+ to v3+ !!! (on someone else's code, that is - not if you add new code that changes the overall licence on the derived work.)

This is a really minor one though. If the recipient is aware of this, then the recipient can easily add a couple of lines to the code base just to do the relicensing. As such, for all practical reasons, my original statement that anybody can relicense actually stands. In other words, bypassing any commitment to keep GPLv2 when you re-distribute is trivial. Enforcing the GPLv3+ license is still left to the copyright holders of course, but that is actually a different matter.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 27, 2016 19:14 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (5 responses)

> > And it's actually very important, because if I grant you the right to use "v2 or later", while you are free to use v3 you MUST tell your recipients "v2 or later" because v3 tells you to!

> Can you point me to where this is stated. I do believe you, but it would be nice to see the writing.

Fifth paragraph of the preamble to GPL version 3 ...

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

To emphasise - "you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received" - ie the freedom to distribute under v2.

> If the recipient is aware of this, then the recipient can easily add a couple of lines to the code base just to do the relicensing.

Which is likely to fall foul of copyright law and be classed as "too trivial to be copyrightable". It pretty much falls in the same category as a brain-dead update of the licence statement and copyright date in all source files - which is legally almost the same thing AT&T did when they messed about with all the copyright statements in Unix way back when - and which a Judge ended up ruling pretty much that they had abandoned their own copyright interest thanks to their own stupidity.

> Enforcing the GPLv3+ license is still left to the copyright holders of course,

Said copyright holder - singular, only copyright holder - being YOU! And as I said above, the change is probably not copyrightable if it's that trivial...

You are presuming that you have the right to alter someone else's grant of licence on their code, and as I have said elsewhere, I do not know of ANY Free or Open Source licence that gives you that power.

Cheers,
Wol

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 28, 2016 10:09 UTC (Sun) by Del- (guest, #72641) [Link] (4 responses)

> To emphasise - "you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received" - ie the freedom to distribute under v2.

Yes, this was the part I thought, thank you. I don't mean to be difficult, but freedom is open for wide interpretation. Actually, I have seen some argue that permissively licensed code is more free than copyleft. For this reason, the FSF has been very specific in stating a definition of freedom in relation to software, as provided by, e.g., wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
it does in no way imply GPLv2. GPLv3 preserves the same freedoms found in GPLv2. Hence, I am afraid your argument falls apart.

> Which is likely to fall foul of copyright law and be classed as "too trivial to be copyrightable".

Indeed, again my precision was way off, my apologies. The added code lines should be sufficient addition to warrant copyright, and trivial additions do not apply here. I still stand by my claim though. For any software you yourself want to distribute, it is trivial to add a non-trivial patch (non-trivial enough to warrant copyright), and hence enable relicensing (within the context discussed here, i.e., from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+). However, I still cannot see a clear argument stating that a recipient of GPLv2+ cannot relicense to GPLv3+ upon redistributing, seeing your argument above seems to fail.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 29, 2016 12:17 UTC (Mon) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] (3 responses)

Sorry, but no, the freedoms granted by the GPLv2 are NOT the same as those granted by the GPLv3.

With GPLv2 someone can "Tivoize" a device. With GPLv3 you cannot. It might not be a freedom that the FSF (or you) likes, but it's a freedom never the less.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 29, 2016 13:50 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (2 responses)

Del- was talking about “freedoms” in terms of the FSF's Four Freedoms. In that context the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are equivalent in that they are both designed to preserve these. Being able to “tivoize” a device is not one of the Four Freedoms.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Mar 1, 2016 1:41 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Unfortunately, in this case, it's the black letter of the licence that rules, not the intent of the people who wrote it.

In any case, saying "I can distribute under v2, but you can't", is placing restrictions on what your downstream is allowed to do, which is a clear breach of the principles behind the GPL. (And, in telling other people what they can and cannot do with code that is not your own, you're exercising powers that copyright law does NOT give you.)

Cheers,
Wol

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Mar 1, 2016 8:58 UTC (Tue) by Del- (guest, #72641) [Link]

> Unfortunately, in this case, it's the black letter of the licence that rules, not the intent of the people who wrote it.

For legal documents like a license, it is very common (I would even say necessary) to supply specific definitions to concepts (like freedom) that are open to interpretation. The GPL does this right above the paragraph you quoted:

"The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things."

The black letter does not seem to support your interpretation.

> in telling other people what they can and cannot do with code that is not your own, you're exercising powers that copyright law does NOT give you.

Generally speaking this is clearly not a true statement. GPL is called copyleft exactly because it gives the recipient of the code powers through copyright law.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 27, 2016 20:09 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (3 responses)

I still don't understand the difference. AFAICT you receive the "licence" (i.e. permission) from a copyright holder who "grants" you that licence (the "licence" that is granted, in the same sense as "to grant permission"). For the GPL, the normal process is that the GPL licence is granted by the copyright holder via 2-stages and using an indirection via referral to the FSF to achieve both consistency and (potential) "upgrade" ability.

Stage 1 is that the copyright holder of a work makes it be known that the work is licensed under the terms of the GPLvX, as published by the FSF, and as usually included alongside the work in a file called "COPYING", but otherwise obtainable directly from the FSF.

Stage 2 is the GPLvX licence document, which documents those terms fully.

Here's stage 1, as per the recommended GPLv2 text, to be attached to a work (e.g. included at the top of a file):

"This file is part of $WORK.

$WORK 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 2, or (at your option) any
later version.

$WORK is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with GNU Zebra; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free
Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA
02111-1307, USA. "

Then stage 2 is the FSF-published GPLv2 licence.

The initial licence is granted by the copyright holder, and the GPLv2 is part of that licence, by reference and reference to the FSF. Additionally, the licence granted may give the option to use any later version of the GPL than the referenced one, as published by the FSF.

"Licence" - a noun, the set of (conditional) permissions given/granted.

"Grant" - a verb, as in "to grant permission" or "to grant a licence" (licence being an old word for permission, deriving from latin), also as in "to give".

Was my understanding.

The copying file is _NOT_ "the grant", it is a legal document setting out conditions and permissions which may be given/granted as the licence to a work - except as an imprecise short-hand that is nounifying a verb. :)

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 28, 2016 0:02 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

> The copying file is _NOT_ "the grant", it is a legal document setting out conditions and permissions which may be given/granted as the licence to a work - except as an imprecise short-hand that is nounifying a verb. :)

"except as an imprecise short-hand that is nounifying a verb"

Or is it a noun that has been verbified? "a grant" to me is perfectly normal (indeed, *ancient*, as in heraldry) usage.

At the end of the day, I think we see it pretty much the same - it's a two-stage thing (and if you don't understand that it is two stages, then you'll misunderstand what's going on - that is the crucial point).

But imho the GPLv2, or v3, which tells you what you can do, and what your obligations are, is the licence; and the COPYING file is what grants you permission to use the licence.

Going back to heraldry, I have in my possession a "grant of arms", which describes my grandfather's arms, and gives him permission to use them. The grant is very much separate from the arms themselves.

Cheers,
Wol

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 28, 2016 0:18 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

And just to add, just because I enclose a copy of GPLv2 (or whatever) with my code, doesn't mean you can use the GPLv2 to copy my code.

You need a separate grant of permission to use the GPLv2. Your stage 1 GRANTS the end user permission to use the GPL (version as specified), which is why I call it a grant! :-) Because it is :-)

Cheers,
Wol

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Mar 6, 2016 16:58 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

The "grant of arms" thing you're talking about is just showing that using the verb "grant" as a shorthand to refer to the documentation of the action (verb) of a grant of some right goes back a long way. The root meaning though is:

To grant a permission/right.

Each can be documented separately, and one might use "grant" as a shorthand for that documentation, but that remains a convenient, context-specific shorthand for what is the documentation of the act of the grant.