1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
|
An explanation of how "copyleft" licensing works
================================================
---
date: "2013-02-21"
---
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 licenses? 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 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.
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."
|
