Re: RFC: stop doing "grand replace" updates to copyright years

[Wol]

On 15/02/2023 17:05, David Kastrup wrote:
> Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > >
> >
> > An individual source file is an individual work.
>
> Apparently you don't understand what licensing a work means.  A license
> is not something pervading files like copyright does.  A license is a
> particular permission.  The GPL is a license for using a complete works,
> not individual files.

Please define "work". I understand perfectly what "licensing a work" 
means. You are arguing that lilypond is a work. I am arguing that a file 
(completely my own work) that I contribute to lilypond, is ALSO a work.

We are both correct.

And if I choose to licence my work under the BSD, that is my 
prerogative. If you choose to reject my work based on my choice of 
licence that is your prerogative. But if you accept my work, THAT DOES 
NOT ALTER THE LICENCE ON MY WORK.
> If you do not accept the license, your rights to use a work fall back to
> the default rights granted by copyright laws of your country, and the
> person who has standing to sue you for breach of copyright is the
> copyright holder of particular code.
>
> > What happens if I decide to add a file under a BSD licence? The
> > copyright ON THAT FILE is not GNU,
>
> You are confusing copyright and license.  The copyright holder
> apparently has decided to license the file to you under the BSD license.
> That includes your right to release that file as a work licensed under
> the GPL.

Please choose your choice of English carefully. The BSD includes the 
right for you to release my BSD work as PART OF your work licenced under 
the GPL.

But as you have written it, you have just said that you can release my 
BSD work as GPL. The BSD does NOT give you that right.
> What happens if someone decides to break your license terms by using
> that file on its own under the original license?

?????????????????? THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

How can you break the licence terms by using a work according to the 
terms it was licenced under?

If my file has a BSD licence on it, and someone uses it according to the 
terms of the BSD licence, it does not matter HOW they got hold of it, 
whether it was included as part of a larger GPL work, a larger 
proprietary work, a larger anything work. They are using my work under 
the licence I released it as. How can that be breaking the licence?

Bear in mind, if they got it via a GPL work, the GPL itself says they 
got a BSD licence, not a GPL licence.

And if, as you imply, that file was not my work, then they cannot breach 
my licence terms because I HAVE NO RIGHT TO SET ANY SUCH TERMS. THAT IS 
*F*O*R*B*I*D*DE*N*.
> As a consequence, files obtained via a BSD license will be _effectively_
> available under the BSD license since pressing the GPL licensing is not
> likely to fly.

It is not only unlikely to fly, legally it has as much ability to fly as 
a dead duck!

The GPL itself says that the licence to that code has been obtained from 
the original copyright holder: so then (a) if that original licence is 
BSD then ALL recipients received a BSD licence not a GPL licence, and 
(b) seeing as the licence came from the copyright holder if I am a 
third-party to the transaction I have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

The GPL cannot grant a GPL licence to code where the copyright holder 
did not grant a GPL licence.
> Legally, however, there is a distinction between authorship/copyright of
> the material and licensing of a particular copy.
>
> > it is not GPL, let's assume no-one has modified it. If that file is
> > 100% my BSD-licenced copyright, you changing the copyright notice
> > (even if it's just the date!) is fraudulent misrepresentation.
>
> No, it isn't, not least of all because text bytes at the start of the
> file are of no legal consequence as long as they are not declared to be
> part of some interaction.

They are of legal consequence if they mislead some third party into 
believing something that is not true.
> I can write at the start of a file "shoot yourself" and that is not
> legally binding.

And if you change the year, you are changing the copyright notice. That 
is legally significant.
> But changing the BSD licensing notice is against the terms of the BSD
> license.  It's one of the few things where BSD without advertising
> clause actually differs significantly from Public Domain.
>
> > You yourself said "The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_
> > _whole_", that "whole", legally BEING THE BINARY. Otherwise the GPL
> > truly would be viral, as detractors like to claim, seizing ownership
> > of works that their creators explicitly did NOT place under the GPL.
>
> Now you are really going off the rails.  I recommend that you read the
> respective FAQs about the GPL.

The law trumps FAQs. And if the GPL explicitly says the GPL does not 
apply, what relevance does a GPL FAQ have?
> > (And lastly, when you said that "GNU only requires copyright
> > assignment for EMACS" and something else, I'm very sorry but you
> > clearly did not read what I wrote. You used present tense, I used past
> > tense. If GNU used to require assignment, then a policy of updating
> > the notices every year makes sense.
>
> No GNU program requiring a copyright assignment for working on it has
> ceased doing so as far as I know, and no GNU program not requiring a
> copyright assignment for working on it has started requiring one (for
> the record: to integrate AUCTeX into Emacs core as a GNU project, it was
> decided that copyright assignments would be needed in order not to have
> a non-copyright-assigned GNU package for the copyright-assigned GNU
> Emacs.  That made it necessary to hunt up all relevant old AUCTeX
> contributors well into the 20th century and get assignments from them, a
> real nuisance: so this was a case where becoming a GNU project
> necessitated assignments after the fact).
>
> > But if they DON'T require copyright assignment, and they DON'T own the
> > copyright, then changing the copyright notice smacks of fraud.
>
> The FSF does not change copyright notices of projects it is not in
> charge of and I already explained why this statement is both wrong and
> unnecessarily inflammatory.

But if you are updating the year, aren't you updating the copyright 
notice? So, if a project does not require copyright assignment, aren't 
you contradicting yourself? You are changing copyright notices on a 
project that you don't own copyright for.

(Note that when AT&T did that to the Unix source, they effectively 
deleted their own copyrights!!!)
> > Simple as. BUT DOES ANYBODY REALLY CARE? Only the armchair lawyers, I
> > guess :-)
>
> I am not sure who you try to denigrate here and for what purpose.
If anyone, myself. (I don't see that it has much real significance. 
Other than by believing things that aren't true, people can cause 
themselves (and others) problems.)


The BIG problem here, is that because projects are EFFECTIVELY licenced 
under the GPL, people believe the falsehood that said projects are 
LEGALLY licenced under the GPL.

The magic of the GPL is that - while pretty much every GPL project is a 
collective work made of multiple smaller works under a big variety of 
licences - it guarantees the collective work can be safely distributed 
SO LONG AS you comply with the GPL.

It does not, CAN not change the licences of the smaller individual works 
that make up the greater whole. And it actually EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS any 
attempt to argue that.

Which is why, imho, you cannot reasonably update *other* *peoples* 
copyright notice. And you most certainly cannot claim the GPL lets you 
do so, because the GPL itself explicitly says it does not apply.

Cheers,
Wol