What is free software? [Re: Licenses and Open Source don't conflict.]

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Gonnerman <chris.gonnerman at newcenturycomputers.net> writes:

    Chris> "GPL Compatible" with respect to Python's license does NOT
    Chris> mean that anyone can change the license at will.  If

If by "change the license," you mean "sublicense under arbitrary
terms", I'm afraid that that is precisely what the FSF thinks it
means.  Otherwise they would not sanction it as GPL-compatible.  The
GPL says that the Work (not just explicitly GPLed parts) must be
redistributed "under the terms of this License" (section 2b).  And
this will apply recursively to those who receive copies from people
you distributed to under the GPL.

IANAL, but I don't see any other way to interpret it.

    Chris> someone incorporates GPL'd code into the Python core, the
    Chris> *aggregate* must be distributed under the GPL but the
    Chris> *core* is still under the normal Python license.

Yes, but you have to get a copy from someone who is allowed to
distribute it under the normal Python license first.  The existence of
that license doesn't exempt you from the terms of the GPL vis a vis
the copy you received under the GPL, strange as that may sound.

The GPL is based on the idea that a Work is a whole, and cannot be
subdivided.  Without that, the whole viral idea falls down.

    Chris> If you aren't the author / copyright owner, you have no
    Chris> right to change the license.

But this is what copyleft is about---preventing sublicensors from
changing the license terms.  See section 4.  No?  Clearly the authors
of the GPL believe it is possible to change license terms, and they go
to great pains to prevent it.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.