[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses license-compatibility.it.html po/l...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses license-compatibility.it.html po/l... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:58:12 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 18/11/13 07:58:12
Modified files:
licenses : license-compatibility.it.html
Added files:
licenses/po : license-compatibility.it-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/license-compatibility.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/po/license-compatibility.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: license-compatibility.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/license-compatibility.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- license-compatibility.it.html 23 Oct 2016 14:29:15 -0000 1.2
+++ license-compatibility.it.html 13 Nov 2018 12:58:12 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/licenses/po/license-compatibility.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/po/license-compatibility.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/licenses/license-compatibility.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/licenses/po/license-compatibility.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-09-14" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/license-compatibility.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>La compatibilità tra le licenze e il re-licenziamento</h2>
<p>di Richard Stallman</p>
@@ -357,7 +363,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2016/10/23 14:29:15 $
+$Date: 2018/11/13 12:58:12 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/license-compatibility.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/license-compatibility.it-diff.html
diff -N po/license-compatibility.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/license-compatibility.it-diff.html 13 Nov 2018 12:58:12 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,379 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/licenses/license-compatibility.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>License Compatibility and Relicensing
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/license-compatibility.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>License Compatibility and Relicensing</h2>
+
+<p>by Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>If you want to combine two free programs into one, or merge code from
+one into the other, this raises the question of whether their licenses
+allow combining <span
class="removed"><del><strong>them.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>them, or prohibit combining them.<a
href="#f1">(*)</a></p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>There is no problem merging programs that have the same license, if it
+is a reasonably behaved license, as nearly all free licenses
+are.<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#f1">(*)</a></p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#f2">(**)</a></p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>What then when the licenses are different? In general we say that
+several licenses are <em>compatible</em> if there is a way to merge
+code under those various licenses while complying with all of them.
+The result, often, is a program with parts under various different
+compatible licenses—but not always. Such combinability, or the
+absence of it, is a characteristic of a given set of licenses, and is
+not dependent on what order you mention them in. The set of licenses
+also controls which license is required for the combined program.</p>
+
+<p>We divide licenses into three classes: lax (also
+“permissive” or “pushover”), intermediate, and
+copyleft. A lax license does nothing to interfere with putting the
+code into proprietary software. A copyleft license prohibits that, by
+requiring all reuse to be in programs under the same license. An
+intermediate license puts some conditions on adding proprietary code
+but does not try to prohibit it.</p>
+
+<p>In general, lax permissive licenses (modified BSD, X11, Expat, Apache,
+Python, etc.) are compatible with each other. That's because they
+have no requirements about other code that is added to the program.
+They even permit putting the entire program (perhaps with changes)
+into a proprietary software product; thus, we call them
+“pushover licenses” because they can't say
+“no” when one user tries to deny freedom to others.</p>
+
+<p>In a combination of programs under lax licenses, each part carries the
+license it came with. When the code is merged to the point that the
+parts can't be distinguished any more, that merged code should carry
+all the licenses of the merged parts. Since all the licenses are lax
+anyway, this causes no practical problem except that the list of
+licenses gets long.<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#f2">(**)</a></p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#f3">(***)</a></p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>By the same token, lax licenses are usually compatible with any
+copyleft license. In the combined program, the parts that came in
+under lax licenses still carry them, and the combined program as a
+whole carries the copyleft license. One lax license, Apache 2.0, has
+patent clauses which are incompatible with GPL version 2; since I
+think those patent clauses are good, I made GPL version 3 compatible
+with them.</p>
+
+<p>The one important exception is the original BSD license, because of
+the “obnoxious advertising clause.” This condition required a
+specific notice in <em>all</em> advertising of
<em>any</em> product
+containing <em>any</em> code released under the original BSD
license.
+This was, and is, incompatible with all actual copyleft licenses. It
+was also a pain in the neck for every distro, as programs accumulated
+with similar but different advertising requirements. At one point, a
+BSD distro required over 70 different notices.</p>
+
+<p>I mostly eliminated this problem by convincing a dean, Hal Varian, to
+arrange for UC Berkeley to publish the “modified BSD
+license” (without the advertising clause) and rerelease the code
+of the Berkeley System Distribution under that. Nowadays the original
+BSD license is (fortunately) rarely used, but we must still take care
+<a href="/licenses/bsd.html">not to talk about “the” BSD
+license</a>.</p>
+
+<p>In general, two different copyleft licenses are unavoidably
+incompatible unless they have explicit compatibility provisions. This
+is not due to a mistake in the details; it's inherent in the idea of
+copyleft. The idea of copyleft is that “Modified and extended
+versions must be under the same license.” If license A says extended
+programs must be under license A, and license B says extended programs
+must be under license B, they have an irreconcilable disagreement; the
+license of the combined program would have to be A, <em>and</em>
it would
+have to be B. This is why GPL version 2 is incompatible with GPL
+version 3; it could not be avoided. Likewise, the conditions of
+CC-BY-SA 4.0 would be inherently incompatible with those of CC-BY-SA
+3.0, and the authors could not have avoided this.</p>
+
+<p>There are two approaches for smoothing out the incompatibility
+inherent in new versions of copyleft licenses.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF uses the approach of asking people to release programs under
+“GNU GPL version N or any later version.” This licensing is
+compatible with version N, and also with N+1 (because it offers
+version N+1 as an option). When you combine code under “GPL 3 or
+later” with code under “GPL 2 or later”, the license
+of the combination is their intersection, which is “GPL 3 or
+later”.</p>
+
+<p>We hope we will never need to make a GNU GPL version 4, but nothing is
+perfect and we can't assume we have anticipated all the issues. By
+releasing your code under GNU GPL 3 or later, you permit your code to
+upgrade to GNU GPL version 4 if we ever need one.</p>
+
+<p>The other approach is to make each version of the license explicitly
+allow upgrading to later versions. This is what Creative Commons
+does: for instance, CC-BY-SA version 4.0 (the current version)
+explicitly permits any user to upgrade to later versions of CC-BY-SA
+once those exist. The Mozilla Foundation also uses this approach.</p>
+
+<p>Only the GNU licenses give authors a choice about whether to permit
+upgrades to future license versions. When I wrote the first version
+of the GNU GPL, in 1989, I considered including a license upgrade
+option as is found now in CC licenses, but I thought it more correct
+to give that choice to each author. Thus, the author could release a
+program either under “GPL 1 only” or “GPL 1 or
+later.”</p>
+
+<p>Since then, I have come to question the wisdom of that decision.
+Programs such as Linux, which allow only one GNU GPL version and
+reject license upgrades, cause practical
+incompatibility.<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#f3">(***)</a></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#f4">(****)</a></em></ins></span>
Perhaps we should include an
+upgrade clause in GPL version 4, if we ever need a version 4.</p>
+
+<p>Some copyleft licenses allow cross-copyleft combinations with an
+explicit relicensing clause giving permission to put the code under a
+different copyleft license. For instance, the CeCILL gives explicit
+permission to relicense code to GNU GPL version 2 and later versions.
+If program P is under the CeCILL, and you want to combine it with
+program Q that's under GPL version 3 or later, the CeCILL says you can
+do that and put the combination or merged code under GPL version 3 or
+later.</p>
+
+<p>Explicit relicensing permission is not the same thing as compatibility
+(though relicensing code can make it compatible with other code) and
+it is not symmetrical. For instance, the CeCILL gives explicit
+permission to relicense code to GNU GPL, but the GNU GPL does not
+permit relicensing to the CeCILL. Thus, you can't combine those two
+programs P and Q and distribute the combination under the CeCILL; that
+would violate the GPL in its use of program Q. The only permitted way
+to release that combined program is under the appropriate GPL
+version(s).</p>
+
+<p>Likewise, CC-BY-SA 4.0 explicitly permits relicensing modified
+versions to GNU GPL version 3, but GPL version 3 does not permit
+relicensing to CC-BY-SA. This issue should never arise for software
+code; Creative Commons says its licenses are not meant for code, and
+says that the license to use for code is the GNU GPL. But there are
+other kinds of works, such as hardware designs or game art, where you
+might have occasion to merge material released under CC-BY-SA with
+material released under the GNU GPL. This can be done through
+CC-BY-SA's explicit relicensing permission.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not permit relicensing to future GPL
+versions. What you should do, when you relicense material under
+CC-BY-SA 4.0 to the GPL, is <a
+href="/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html#future-proofing">specify
+yourself as a license version proxy</a> to indicate whether future GPL
+versions have been authorized for that material. If someday there is
+a GPL version 4 and Creative Commons decides to allow relicensing from
+CC-BY-SA to GPL version 4, you as proxy will be able to retroactively
+authorize use of that relicensed material under GPL version 4.
+(Alternatively, you can ask the authors of that material to give
+permission right away.)</p>
+
+<p>The ordinary GNU General Public License and the GNU Affero General
+Public License are two different copyleft licenses, so they are
+naturally incompatible. We have set up a special kind of explicit
+compatibility between them: you can include source code under the GNU
+GPL version 3 together with other source code under the GNU Affero GPL
+in a single combined program. This is permitted because both of those
+licenses explicitly say so, and the effect is that the GNU AGPL
+applies to the combined program. However, you can't simply relicense
+code from the GNU GPL (with or without “or later”) to the
+GNU Affero GPL, or vice versa; neither of these licenses gives
+permission for that. Note also that the GNU Affero GPL version 3 is
+not a “later version” of the ordinary GNU GPL version 2,
+because the GNU Affero GPL and the GNU GPL are two different series of
+licenses.</p>
+
+<p>The GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3, is really the GNU
+General Public License version 3 plus some added extra permissions.
+GPL version 3 (section 7) says you can always remove added
+permissions, and by doing so you get the same code under the ordinary
+GNU GPL version 3. If a program permits use under GNU LGPL
+version 3 or later, you can relicense it to GPL version 3 or later;
+for each future GPL version N (N > 3), we will make an LGPL version
+N which consists of the GPL version N plus added permissions.</p>
+
+<p>As for GNU Lesser GPL version 2.1, that explicitly permits relicensing
+to GNU GPL version 2 or later.</p>
+
+<p>Intermediate licenses are those which have substantive requirements
+on redistribution but are not copyleft licenses. Examples include the
+Eclipse Public License and the Mozilla Public License. Intermediate
+licenses tend to be incompatible with any copyleft licenses because
+their requirements don't permit the combined program to be under the
+copyleft license. The Mozilla Public License permits relicensing to
+the GNU GPL except when the code explicitly denies this
+permission.</p>
+
+<p>Finally, what about dual licensing?<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#f4">(****)</a></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#f5">(*****)</a></em></ins></span> A
dual
+license is a disjunction: it means that the same program carries a
+choice of two or more different licenses. For instance, older
+versions of Perl carried a dual license: the disjunction of the
+Artistic License and the GNU General Public License. This meant that
+each user could choose to use and redistribute Perl under one license
+or the other, or under both in disjunction like the Perl release
+itself. A disjunction is compatible with a set of other licenses if
+any one of the license choices in the disjunction is compatible with
+that set.</p>
+
+<p>When you choose a license for your code, please choose GNU GPL version
+3 or later, or some license compatible with that. This is the way to
+make your code combinable with nearly all the corpus of free software.
+Choosing GPL or AGPL, version 3 or later, will also do the utmost to
+defend freedom for all users of all versions of your code.</p>
+
+<h3 <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="combining">Combining
code</h3>
+
+<p>When a set of licenses are compatible, that means you can legally
+combine or merge a number of programs each licensed under one of those
+licenses. How, then, is the combined program licensed?</p>
+
+<p>Each free software license says you must keep the license with the
+code that is covered by it. So in a strict sense, the licensing of
+the combined program includes the licenses of all its parts. However,
+sometimes you want a <em>summary</em> answer to the question of how
+the combined program is licensed. Which licenses does someone using
+the combined program <em>need to pay attention to?</em></p>
+
+<p>To compute that, you start with a list of all the pertinent
+licenses. Then you can delete from the list any license which is
+subsumed by another in the list.</p>
+
+<p>We say that a license A <em>subsumes</em> license B when
compliance with
+license A implies compliance with license B.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, the GNU GPL version N and the GNU Affero GPL version
+N both subsume the GNU Lesser GPL version N, and all three of those
+subsume the GNU Lesser GPL version 2.1.</p>
+
+<p>Any GNU license, version N, subsumes the Apache 2.0 license provided
+N is at least 3.</p>
+
+<p>The GNU GPL, version N, subsumes all versions of the Mozilla Public
+License that are compatible with it.</p>
+
+<p>The Apache 2.0 license subsumes the BSD, Expat, X11, ISC and CC-0
+licenses. BSD 3 clause subsumes BSD 2 clause. The BSD licenses
+subsume the Expat, X11 and ISC licenses and CC-0.</p>
+
+<p>This is not meant to be a complete list, but if we are informed of
+other cases worth mentioning, we will add them.</p>
+
+<p>When some license is subsumed, you still need to include a copy
+of it with all distribution of the combined program.</p>
+
+<h3</em></ins></span> id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3>
+
+<p id="f1"><b>*</b> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>It is
not inconceivable that other legal issues
+might arise about a specific combination of programs, issues not
+related to the copyright licenses of the programs to be combined. We
+discuss only the implications of the licenses themselves.</p>
+
+<p id="f2"><b>**</b></em></ins></span> The main license in
actual use that isn't
+reasonably behaved is the license of TeX: if two programs are licensed
+just the way TeX is, there is no authorized way to distribute a merged
+version of them.</p>
+
+<p>The TeX license permits distribution of a modified version only in
+the form of the original version plus a differences file. If A and B
+are separately released that way, then merged, distributing the merged
+program as A plus a change file violates the license of B.
+Distributing this as B plus a change file violates the license of A.
+Distributing this in any other way violates both licenses.</p>
+
+<p>It is no coincidence that TeX was released in 1982: our community has
+learned, since then, to write reasonably behaved licenses.</p>
+
+<p <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="f2"><b>**</b></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="f3"><b>***</b></em></ins></span>
When distributing in source code
+form, it is usually sufficient to leave the license notices in the
+source code as they stand; extra license notice requirements typically
+only come up for lax licenses when distributing binaries without the
+source code.</p>
+
+<p <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="f3"><b>***</b></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="f4"><b>****</b></em></ins></span>
In addition, GPL version 2 still allows
+binaries to be made nonfree by hardware that rejects all but special
+signed binaries, and still does not allow distribution of binaries by
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>torrent, as it did when first published.
We</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>torrent. <a
href="/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html">We</em></ins></span> fixed those <span
class="removed"><del><strong>things</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>problems,</em></ins></span> and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>others</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>others,</em></ins></span> in version <span
class="removed"><del><strong>3,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>3</a>,</em></ins></span> but we can't change
version 2.</p>
+
+<p <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="f4"><b>****</b></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="f5"><b>*****</b></em></ins></span>
Some <span class="removed"><del><strong>inexplicably</strong></del></span> use
the term “dual licensing”
+to refer to selling exceptions, but that is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>an abuse
+of language.</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>a
misnomer.</em></ins></span>
+See <a href="/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html"> Selling
+Exceptions</a>. Note that if the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>program on which the</em></ins></span> license <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>is</em></ins></span> sold <span
class="removed"><del><strong>as an exception</strong></del></span>
+includes any code that is not in the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>ordinary</strong></del></span> free <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>(libre)</em></ins></span> release, that's not
+selling exceptions, that's nonfree software.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2018</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/11/13 12:58:12 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/licenses license-compatibility.it.html po/l...,
GNUN <=