diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'public/fs-licensing-explanation.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | public/fs-licensing-explanation.html | 80 |
1 files changed, 80 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/public/fs-licensing-explanation.html b/public/fs-licensing-explanation.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f46dd7f --- /dev/null +++ b/public/fs-licensing-explanation.html @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="utf-8"> + <title>An explanation of how "copyleft" licensing works — Luke T. Shumaker</title> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/style.css"> + <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="./index.atom" name="web log entries"/> +</head> +<body> +<header><a href="/">Luke T. Shumaker</a> » <a href=/blog>blog</a> » fs-licensing-explanation</header> +<article> +<h1 id="an-explanation-of-how-copyleft-licensing-works">An explanation +of how “copyleft” licensing works</h1> +<p>This is based on a post on <a +href="http://www.reddit.com/r/freesoftware/comments/18xplw/can_software_be_free_gnu_and_still_be_owned_by_an/c8ixwq2">reddit</a>, +published on 2013-02-21.</p> +<blockquote> +<p>While reading the man page for readline I noticed the copyright +section said “Readline is Copyright (C) 1989-2011 Free Software +Foundation Inc”. How can software be both licensed under GNU and +copyrighted to a single group? It was my understanding that once code +became free it didn’t belong to any particular group or individual.</p> +<p>[LiveCode is GPLv3, but also sells non-free licenses] Can you really +have the same code under two conflicting licenses? Once licensed under +GPL3 wouldn’t they too be required to adhere to its rules?</p> +</blockquote> +<p>I believe that GNU/the FSF has an FAQ that addresses this, but I +can’t find it, so here we go.</p> +<h3 id="glossary">Glossary:</h3> +<ul> +<li>“<em>Copyright</em>” is the right to control how copies are made of +something.</li> +<li>Something for which no one holds the copyright is in the “<em>public +domain</em>”, because anyone (“the public”) is allowed to do +<em>anything</em> with it.</li> +<li>A “<em>license</em>” is basically a legal document that says “I +promise not to sue you if make copies in these specific ways.”</li> +<li>A “<em>non-free</em>” license basically says “There are no +conditions under which you can make copies that I won’t sue you.”</li> +<li>A “<em>permissive</em>” (type of free) license basically says “You +can do whatever you want, BUT have to give me credit”, and is very +similar to the public domain. If the copyright holder didn’t have the +copyright, they couldn’t sue you to make sure that you gave them credit, +and nobody would have to give them credit.</li> +<li>A “<em>copyleft</em>” (type of free) license basically says, “You +can do whatever you want, BUT anyone who gets a copy from you has to be +able to do whatever they want too.” If the copyright holder didn’t have +the copyright, they couldn’t sue you to make sure that you gave the +source to people go got it from you, and non-free versions of these +programs would start to exist.</li> +</ul> +<h3 id="specific-questions">Specific questions:</h3> +<p>Readline: The GNU GPL is a copyleft license. If you make a modified +version of Readline, and give it to others without letting them have the +source code, the FSF will sue you. They can do this because they have +the copyright on Readline, and in the GNU GPL (the license they used) it +only says that they won’t sue you if you distribute the source with the +modified version. If they didn’t have the copyright, they couldn’t sue +you, and the GNU GPL would be worthless.</p> +<p>LiveCode: The copyright holder for something is not required to obey +the license—the license is only a promise not to sue you; of course they +won’t sue themselves. They can also offer different terms to different +people. They can tell most people “I won’t sue you as long as you share +the source,” but if someone gave them a little money, they might say, “I +also promise not sue sue this guy, even if he doesn’t give out the +source.”</p> + +</article> +<footer> + <aside class="sponsor"><p>I'd love it if you <a class="em" + href="/sponsor/">sponsored me</a>. It will allow me to continue + <a class="em" href="/imworkingon/">my work</a> on the GNU/Linux + ecosystem. Thanks!</p></aside> + +<p>The content of this page is Copyright © 2013 <a href="mailto:lukeshu@lukeshu.com">Luke T. Shumaker</a>.</p> +<p>This page is licensed under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</a> license.</p> +</footer> +</body> +</html> |