[Top][All Lists]

[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.


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" 
+ --><!--#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!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" --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 -->

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      
@@ -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">
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;License Compatibility and Relicensing
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+ &lt;!--#include virtual="/licenses/po/license-compatibility.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;License Compatibility and Relicensing&lt;/h2&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;by Richard Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>them, or prohibit combining them.&lt;a 
+&lt;p&gt;There is no problem merging programs that have the same license, if it
+is a reasonably behaved license, as nearly all free licenses
+are.&lt;a <span 
+&lt;p&gt;What then when the licenses are different?  In general we say that
+several licenses are &lt;em&gt;compatible&lt;/em&gt; 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&mdash;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;We divide licenses into three classes: lax (also
+&ldquo;permissive&rdquo; or &ldquo;pushover&rdquo;), 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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
+&ldquo;pushover licenses&rdquo; because they can't say
+&ldquo;no&rdquo; when one user tries to deny freedom to others.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;a <span 
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The one important exception is the original BSD license, because of
+the &ldquo;obnoxious advertising clause.&rdquo;  This condition required a
+specific notice in &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; advertising of 
&lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; product
+containing &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; code released under the original BSD 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;I mostly eliminated this problem by convincing a dean, Hal Varian, to
+arrange for UC Berkeley to publish the &ldquo;modified BSD
+license&rdquo; (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
+&lt;a href="/licenses/bsd.html"&gt;not to talk about &ldquo;the&rdquo; BSD
+&lt;p&gt;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 &ldquo;Modified and extended
+versions must be under the same license.&rdquo;  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, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; 
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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;There are two approaches for smoothing out the incompatibility
+inherent in new versions of copyleft licenses.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The FSF uses the approach of asking people to release programs under
+&ldquo;GNU GPL version N or any later version.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;GPL 3 or
+later&rdquo; with code under &ldquo;GPL 2 or later&rdquo;, the license
+of the combination is their intersection, which is &ldquo;GPL 3 or
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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 &ldquo;GPL 1 only&rdquo; or &ldquo;GPL 1 or
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;a <span 
Perhaps we should include an
+upgrade clause in GPL version 4, if we ever need a version 4.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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
+&lt;p&gt;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
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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 &lt;a
+yourself as a license version proxy&lt;/a&gt; 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.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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 &ldquo;or later&rdquo;) 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 &ldquo;later version&rdquo; of the ordinary GNU GPL version 2,
+because the GNU Affero GPL and the GNU GPL are two different series of
+&lt;p&gt;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 &gt; 3), we will make an LGPL version
+N which consists of the GPL version N plus added permissions.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;As for GNU Lesser GPL version 2.1, that explicitly permits relicensing
+to GNU GPL version 2 or later.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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
+&lt;p&gt;Finally, what about dual licensing?&lt;a <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#f5"&gt;(*****)&lt;/a&gt;</em></ins></span> A 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;h3 <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="combining"&gt;Combining 
+&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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 &lt;em&gt;summary&lt;/em&gt; answer to the question of how
+the combined program is licensed.  Which licenses does someone using
+the combined program &lt;em&gt;need to pay attention to?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;We say that a license A &lt;em&gt;subsumes&lt;/em&gt; license B when 
compliance with
+license A implies compliance with license B.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Any GNU license, version N, subsumes the Apache 2.0 license provided
+N is at least 3.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The GNU GPL, version N, subsumes all versions of the Mozilla Public
+License that are compatible with it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This is not meant to be a complete list, but if we are informed of
+other cases worth mentioning, we will add them.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;When some license is subsumed, you still need to include a copy
+of it with all distribution of the combined program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;h3</em></ins></span> id="footnotes"&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p id="f1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;*&lt;/b&gt; <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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p id="f2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;**&lt;/b&gt;</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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;It is no coincidence that TeX was released in 1982: our community has
+learned, since then, to write reasonably behaved licenses.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p <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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p <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.  
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>torrent.  &lt;a 
href="/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html"&gt;We</em></ins></span> fixed those <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&lt;/a&gt;,</em></ins></span> but we can't change 
version 2.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p <span 
Some <span class="removed"><del><strong>inexplicably</strong></del></span> use 
the term &ldquo;dual licensing&rdquo;
+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 
+See &lt;a href="/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html"&gt; Selling
+Exceptions&lt;/a&gt;.  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2018</em></ins></span> Free Software 
Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2018/11/13 12:58:12 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]