I’ve been made aware of a discussion on emacs-devel regarding the Emacs Wiki license. It hurts. The Emacs Wiki license was designed to stop all this lawyer-talking bullshit. 😢
a discussion on emacs-devel regarding the Emacs Wiki license
The Emacs Wiki license:
This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the *GNU General Public License*. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work under the *GNU Free Documentation License*, the *CreativeCommons ShareAlike License*, the *XEmacs manual license*, or *similar licenses*.
“Similar licenses” links to a small document saying
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this document under the conditions for verbatim copying. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this document into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
Essentially, I want to grant recipients of the work four licenses: *use*, *copy*, *modify*, and *distribute*, and I want to force recipients to grant the same license when they distribute the work or derivatives. Copyleft, plain and simple!
I thought that the GPL v3 tries to achieve the same goal. But RMS informs me that section 7 “Additional Terms” allows recipients to *add exceptions*.
groan:
I must confess that section 7 is giving me a headache.
I try to stick to some advice I got from a friend with legal background: In court, the *intent* of a contract is what counts. You don’t have to spell it all out. Using this as a guiding principle, here’s how I���m thinking it through:
I get something under the Emacs Wiki license, but I want to publish it using the GPL v3. Is the GPL v3 a license “that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the same restriction?” Looking at the GPL v3 Preamble, I feel reassured. It “is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program [...]. To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.” Also, section 10 says “You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.” Sounds good!
But on to the dreadful section 7: “for material you add to a covered work, you may [...] supplement the terms of this License” with a list of items. Ugh! The only good thing about it is that these additional terms apply to material I add myself.
A first reading seems to indicate no conflict with the *intent* of the Emacs Wiki license, even if all the terms of section 7 are added to derivative works.
But does the license impose “the restriction that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the same restriction?”
One could argue that derivative works end up with a bit more restrictions. But then again the Emacs Wiki license specifically names the GNU Free Documentation License as one possiblity. And that license has similar options, eg. the option to add invariant sections.
I feel that I don’t have to reword the Emacs Wiki license. Certainly, I could add a GPL v3 endorsement, but if the GNU Free Documentation License is a possible license, then really that is no different from the GPL v3 with section 7 terms.
What do you think?
PS: Also, let me add that by now these licensing discussions bore me to tears.
PPS: And it reminds me of the time wasted studying the GNU Free Documentation License, thinking about a separate wiki license, and arguing with RMS about licenses back in 2003 when I started Emacs Wiki. They are too damn complicated. And I think the reason is copyright affecting our daily lives where it used to only affect the closed circle of publishers and printers. Copyright has become too unwieldy for daily use.
#Copyright #GPL #Emacs #Wikis
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
“The Emacs Wiki license was designed to stop all this lawyer-talking bullshit.” Spot on. Don’t let them grind you down!
– Mathias, occasional reader 2009-11-29 00:04 UTC
---
Seems like in the process of trying to make GNU license work in as many countries and legal systems as possible, it became a little too complicated for an average user... as if someone tried to make a text editor also work as browser, irc and e-mail client ;)
– RadomirDopieralski 2009-11-29 18:16 UTC
---
Grrrrr! 😄
– Alex Schroeder 2009-11-29 18:45 UTC
---
So the problem was just a careless oversight? The Emacs Wiki license should have said GPLv2 **or later**.
– AaronHawley 2009-11-29 22:51 UTC
---
Not really. The wiki says GPLv2 and then goes on to say that you can pick any other copyleft license instead, if you want. At least that’s how I see it, and that’s how I intended it to be.
I’m not even sure I understand what RMS’ problem is. He seems to believe that section 7 contradicts my description of a copyleft license.
Thus, either I made a mistake in describing a copyleft license, or the GPL v3 is not a copyleft license as I understand it, or my language is confusing RMS, or I’m being dragged into a boring legalese hair-splitting party.
I’ll meet some friends from openlaw.ch (unrelated to Lessig’s Openlaw in the states) on Thursday and Friday and we’ll talk about it, hopefully.
– Alex Schroeder 2009-11-29 23:53 UTC
---
Yeah, I don’t understand the implications of section 7 with this situation, either. There seem to be several issues in this thread.
1. Emacs was upgraded to GPLv3 or later.
2. The GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3.
3. The section 7 business from Emacs Wiki’s “additional terms”.
4. Richard wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3, yesterday.
Richard has been upgrading the GPL for the last ten years, and he sees every opportunity to upgrade a package or project as a moral necessity. This is understandable, but RMS could be more understanding that Emacs Wiki is a different animal and provide friendlier assistance with the upgrade – himself or the GPL compliance lab. For example, pulling out the issues above and addressing them separately would be helpful.
The Emacs Wiki license seems like an example of a *multi-license*, but perhaps this is a mistaken assumption. Like other community projects, the Emacs Wiki holds code and documentation that we want to be able share with GNU Emacs, XEmacs and other free software packages, but also potentially with other Wiki. There are practical reasons for the license on Emacs Wiki, whether the GPLv3 can facilitate such interactions will be interesting to see.
– AaronHawley 2009-11-30 02:56 UTC