foremost legality (GPL vs Public Domain)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Thanks  Patrick, unless someone raises new objections then, I'll keep
the foremost package awaiting review as GPL.  I'll just have to wait on
word from the FSF so that upstream will accept the licensing as well.

-Toshio

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 00:45 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 20:55 -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 22:29 -0500, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Would this be analogous to the GPL requirement that the recipient of a
> >>>binary package be able to get the source code?
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Not at all. Use of public domain works is entirely unrestricted; that
> >>means that you can package it up and sell it as binaries without
> >>providing the source code if you want. Or you can choose to include it
> >>in any program under any license whatsoever.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>In this case, user of the GPL package would have the right to request
> >>>the original, public-domain-only code. Either the GPL package points to
> >>>the original package in its documentation, or the SRPM be packaged as
> >>>the original tarball + a recursive diff with the GPL'ed tree?
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Putting a work in the public domain means giving up all
> >>copyright-law-related rights to it. This means that anyone is free to do
> >>whatever the heck they want with it; one such possibility is to include
> >>the source code in some other program and distribute the result under
> >>whatever license one feels like.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >This is what I originally thought.  But then I read this section of the
> >FSF's FAQ:
> >http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAssignCopyright
> >"...Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public
> >domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we
> >encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and
> >only put small changes in the public domain."
> >
> >  
> >
> This basically means that if you produce a bunch of code under the
> public domain, you are giving up the ability to require future
> contributions to also be licensed under the GPL, you are allowing it to
> be distributed commercially, and you are waving all other rights to it. 
> This passage basically only applies when you are considering whether to
> license your code under the GPL or give it to the public domain.  Any
> GPL code that is added to a public domain work is protected by the GPL,
> and has the usual requirements.  In order to circumvent those
> requirements, a person would have to remove all of the GPL'd code,
> leaving only the original public domain code.
> 
> >Which seems to imply that Public Domain is not so much disclaiming all
> >legal right as it is putting the code into a state where it is legally
> >untouchable.  How that relates when submitting public domain code to a
> >GPL'd project is explained here:
> >http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCRequiredToClaimCopyright
> >http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLUSGovAdd
> >
> >  
> >
> Code in the public domain can be used in any way you want, basically. 
> There are no restrictions whatsoever.  It is by no means legally
> untouchable.  There are more risks using GPL'd code in your project than
> there are using public domain code.
> 
> >All in all, I think it would be okay, but we are talking about adding
> >GPL code to an existing public domain application so I'm not 100% sure
> >it applies the same way.  I've sent an email off to the FSF at the
> >request of the upstream authors but I don't know if they'll get back to
> >me soon on this or not.  Does Red Hat legal want to weigh in on this so
> >I know if packaging it is fine for now or should I just wait for the
> >FSF?
> >
> >-Toshio
> >  
> >
> There is definitely nothing wrong with seeking legal approval, but any
> verification of what I have said should be evidence enough for you,
> whether it comes from the FSF or Red Hat.  If you know any IP attorneys,
> you can ask them, too.  This is all pretty clear, legally.
> 
> -- 
> Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
> nman64 at n-man.com
> 
> www.n-man.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050830/65dafbdb/attachment.sig>