4 ms·

> Yes, correct! GPL does not allow requiring citations. I understand that the copyright holder can in general specify whatever clauses in the license, even if

> Yes, correct! GPL does not allow requiring citations. I understand that the copyright holder can in general specify whatever clauses in the license, even if this makes it self-contradictory, and is not bound by any statements by FSF. In this case, it becomes unclear what use of the software is actually allowed.

mikegerwitz 10y ago
Even if the software were licensed under two different licenses, as long as one of them were the GPL, you could choose that one. But even if you add additional terms to the GPL, you are free to remove them under Section 7: "When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Note that the GPL only applies to distributors of the software, not to users, so you wouldn't be bound to such restrictions anyway.
- beevai142 10y ago
  The point is not that there are two licenses, but that there is one license, "GPL + additional requirements", where the copyright holder is free to add requirements contradicting the GPL. For example, a copyright holder may say "MIT license, BUT, the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", and lawyers will balk. [1,2] [1] http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/ https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil...
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    The copyright holder is free to use whatever license they wish, yes. But if they choose to use the GPL, they must abide by its terms. They aren't free to rewrite parts of it---their license would then be a derivative work of the GPL, which isn't permissible. Section 7 would have to be modified to say that the user can't remove such terms. If they use the GPL and impose extra terms, state that Section 7 is invalid, then there is a contradiction in the license, and it'd be up to a court to decide. I'm sure any sensible lawyer would tell them that they should use a different license; it's senseless using the GPL if you're going to try to do such a thing.
    - beevai142 10y ago
      I don't think Section 7 enables automatically ignoring non-permissive additional terms --- the "additional permissions" are defined in the section to be exceptions from conditions, not as further restrictions. Interpreting what exactly happens in this case probably requires a lawyer. It's of course the case that using GPL and adding such clauses does not make any sense. GNU parallel does not appear to be doing this, as the license text is unmodified GPL with no additional clauses.
      - mikegerwitz 10y ago
        The exception would be on Section 2: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."
      - rpdillon 10y ago
        Further down in section 7: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
  - dahart 10y ago
    > there is one license, "GPL + additional requirements" While these additional requirements may (or may not) be possible and legal, in the case of GNU Parallel, the license is unmodified GPLv3. The project would need to identify a separate license that inherits GPLv3 and explicitly states those additional requirements, but in this case it does not. GPLv3 is used directly and verbatim on the project home page https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/ https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/ The text the executable spits out asks for citations, but it does not identify itself as a license, it does not state that citations are a legal requirement, and it does not state a relationship to GPLv3 nor carve out exceptions or additional requirements.

mikegerwitz 10y ago

Even if the software were licensed under two different licenses, as long as one of them were the GPL, you could choose that one. But even if you add additional terms to the GPL, you are free to remove them under Section 7: "When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Note that the GPL only applies to distributors of the software, not to users, so you wouldn't be bound to such restrictions anyway.

beevai142 10y ago
The point is not that there are two licenses, but that there is one license, "GPL + additional requirements", where the copyright holder is free to add requirements contradicting the GPL. For example, a copyright holder may say "MIT license, BUT, the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", and lawyers will balk. [1,2] [1] http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/ https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil...
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  The copyright holder is free to use whatever license they wish, yes. But if they choose to use the GPL, they must abide by its terms. They aren't free to rewrite parts of it---their license would then be a derivative work of the GPL, which isn't permissible. Section 7 would have to be modified to say that the user can't remove such terms. If they use the GPL and impose extra terms, state that Section 7 is invalid, then there is a contradiction in the license, and it'd be up to a court to decide. I'm sure any sensible lawyer would tell them that they should use a different license; it's senseless using the GPL if you're going to try to do such a thing.
  - beevai142 10y ago
    I don't think Section 7 enables automatically ignoring non-permissive additional terms --- the "additional permissions" are defined in the section to be exceptions from conditions, not as further restrictions. Interpreting what exactly happens in this case probably requires a lawyer. It's of course the case that using GPL and adding such clauses does not make any sense. GNU parallel does not appear to be doing this, as the license text is unmodified GPL with no additional clauses.
    - mikegerwitz 10y ago
      The exception would be on Section 2: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."
    - rpdillon 10y ago
      Further down in section 7: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
- dahart 10y ago
  > there is one license, "GPL + additional requirements" While these additional requirements may (or may not) be possible and legal, in the case of GNU Parallel, the license is unmodified GPLv3. The project would need to identify a separate license that inherits GPLv3 and explicitly states those additional requirements, but in this case it does not. GPLv3 is used directly and verbatim on the project home page https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/ https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/ The text the executable spits out asks for citations, but it does not identify itself as a license, it does not state that citations are a legal requirement, and it does not state a relationship to GPLv3 nor carve out exceptions or additional requirements.