From 6a42c8de66e3b2dc7293ddeadaa3ee396db2624d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Shumaker Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:47:42 -0400 Subject: initial commit --- public/fs-licensing-explanation.md | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+) create mode 100644 public/fs-licensing-explanation.md (limited to 'public/fs-licensing-explanation.md') diff --git a/public/fs-licensing-explanation.md b/public/fs-licensing-explanation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad170a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/public/fs-licensing-explanation.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +An explanation of how "copyleft" licensing works +================================================ +:copyright 2013 Luke Shumaker + +This is based on a post on [reddit][1], published on 2013-02-21. + +[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/freesoftware/comments/18xplw/can_software_be_free_gnu_and_still_be_owned_by_an/c8ixwq2 + +> 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. +> +> [LiveCode is GPLv3, but also sells non-free licenses] Can you really +> have the same code under two conflicting licences? Once licensed +> under GPL3 wouldn't they too be required to adhere to its rules? + +I believe that GNU/the FSF has an FAQ that addresses this, but I can't +find it, so here we go. + +### Glossary: + + * "*Copyright*" is the right to control how copies are made of + something. + * Something for which no one holds the copyright is in the "*public + domain*", because anyone ("the public") is allowed to do *anything* + with it. + * A "*license*" is basically a legal document that says "I promise + not to sue you if make copies in these specific ways." + * A "*non-free*" license basically says "There are no conditions + under which you can make copies that I won't sue you." + * A "*permissive*" (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. + * A "*copyleft*" (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. + +### Specific questions: + +Readline: The GNU GPL is a copyleft license. If you make a modified +version of Readline, and don't let others 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. + +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." -- cgit v1.2.3