This is mostly a question for Erik Moeller and Lee Daniel Crocker. The new README in CVS says,
Sections of code written exclusively by Lee Crocker or Erik Moeller are also released into the public domain, wich does not impair the obligations of users under the GPL for use of the whole code or other sections thereof.
First, I'm pretty sure you can't release something under the GPL and also disclaim copyright to it.
Second, it's not clear that you can contribute to a GPL project like Mediawiki and make "parts" of that work public domain. What parts of your work are not derivative of previous work, and thus not required to be under the GPL? Remember, derivation doesn't just mean "containing parts of previous stuff" -- adding a function to an existing module is making a derivative work (the new module), even if "your" function doesn't contain any code from the other modules.
Lastly, who benefits from this? Why make this confusion for users? How am I supposed to figure out what parts of MediaWiki aren't encumbered by the GPL? If it's pretty much impossible to me to find out, what good does it do? And how does that outweigh the downside of confusion to the 99% of other users who don't need the PD dedication?
If somebody wants to put parts of MediaWiki under a separate license, they should be really clear about what's under that separate license, and they should make real sure that they aren't violating the GPL by doing so.
~ESP
Hi all,
Disclaimer: IANAL
I agree that using two different licenses leads to confusion and should be avoided.
But IIRC you can put the same piece of code under different licenses, because a license is a contract between the author and the consumer/reader/audience. When you license your code to Alice under license A, and to Bob under license B, you just have placed two contracts.
But I may be horribly wrong on this.
Cheers, Stephan
Evan Prodromou wrote:
First, I'm pretty sure you can't release something under the GPL and also disclaim copyright to it.
Second, it's not clear that you can contribute to a GPL project like Mediawiki and make "parts" of that work public domain. What parts of your work are not derivative of previous work, and thus not required to be under the GPL? Remember, derivation doesn't just mean "containing parts of previous stuff" -- adding a function to an existing module is making a derivative work (the new module), even if "your" function doesn't contain any code from the other modules.
This is indeed a tricky situation, but combining the two isn't entirely impossible. The following situation is perfectly okay: * Write a stand-alone, independent piece of code, and disclaim copyright to it, thereby releasing it into the public domain * Incorporate this piece of (now public domain) code into a larger GPL'd project
The piece of code on its own is still public domain, but the complete project is GPL'd. It is true that because of the GPL's nature, any changes that are derived works of the whole must themselves be GPL'd, so unless the public domain module is developed in a strictly segregated fashion, with all changes also released into the public domain, over time the entire body of code will slowly become GPL'd (as derived works of a public domain original are copyrightable).
Perhaps a clearer wording would be that the code is released under the GPL, but some portions derive from code by Erik Moeller and Daniel Lee Crocker that was orginally in the public domain, and remains in the public domain to the extent that it hasn't been modified since then.
(Of course, maybe that isn't clearer.)
-Mark
Evan Prodromou wrote:
This is mostly a question for Erik Moeller and Lee Daniel Crocker. The new README in CVS says,
Sections of code written exclusively by Lee Crocker or Erik Moeller are also released into the public domain, wich does not impair the obligations of users under the GPL for use of the whole code or other sections thereof.First, I'm pretty sure you can't release something under the GPL and also disclaim copyright to it.
You can develop something independently, disclaim copyright to it, and then incorporate it into a GPL project. (If that was not possible, it would mean that no GPL project can ever incorporate public-domain code.)
Maybe nobody can use those public-domain pieces because they're pretty much useless without the rest that is GPL, and is thus pretty much forced to adhere to the GPL, but that doesn't mean that Erik and Lee Daniel have to keep their copyright.
Timwi
Evan Prodromou wrote:
First, I'm pretty sure you can't release something under the GPL and also disclaim copyright to it.
Consider the case of a public domain program which has been heavily modified by the addition of code that is copyrighted and GPL-licensed. Or, to use the classic copyright dilettante's example, a modern Disney cartoon based on a 19th-century book which has fallen into the public domain. ;)
These cases are equivalent, but they look clearer since you can see the PD material on its own. [IANAL! IANAL!]
Second, it's not clear that you can contribute to a GPL project like Mediawiki and make "parts" of that work public domain.
[snip]
Lastly, who benefits from this?
[snip]
No particular "parts" are public domain. Much of MediaWiki's code has been touched by many hands; even Lee's major rewrite of '02 was heavily based on Magnus's codebase, and afaik Magnus has not disclaimed copyright.
The practical effect is simply that if we want to relicense the codebase later on, we won't need to get Lee or Erik's permission, as they've disclaimed copyright on their contributions.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Evan-
Sections of code written exclusively by Lee Crocker or Erik Moeller are also released into the public domain, wich does not impair the obligations of users under the GPL for use of the whole code or other sections thereof.
First, I'm pretty sure you can't release something under the GPL and also disclaim copyright to it.
I would recommend removing the word "also" from the above paragraph, but I didn't write it. Maybe Lee had a reason for phrasing it this way. Derivative copyright is a thorny issue (and underscores the idiocy of the whole concept of copyright), so I won't get into it too deeply. What it essentially is supposed to say (IMO) is, "Everything by these contributors that *can* be legally put in the public domain, is." The more other coders follow our example, the larger that body of work will be.
Lastly, who benefits from this? Why make this confusion for users? How am I supposed to figure out what parts of MediaWiki aren't encumbered by the GPL?
You don't have to if you want to use the GPL, since GPL'd code can legally include PD source, just as GFDL documents can legally include public domain texts and images. If you want to be on the safe side, just adhere to the GPL. But if I added, say, a major new extension to MediaWiki, then you could use the first version of that extension that is not incorporated into a GPL work by someone else and do with it whatever you want.
By the way, since >99% of our users never download or install MediaWiki (they use the wiki through someone else's web server), the difference between GPL and PD is surprisingly small for all practical purposes. You could, for example, add lots of proprietary libraries to MediaWiki or port the whole thing over to .NET, but never give anyone the source - if you don't distribute it at all, you don't have to.
This is not theoretical. There is at least one person running a quite expensive wiki hosting service on the basis of a heavily modified UseMod codebase which has never been made publicly available, for instance. And the Scoop weblog/diary system has been significantly extended and localized by the people at nensch.de, but they have explicitly stated that they don't want to share the code because of the effort they have put into it. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, more examples already.
The next major GPL release will supposedly address this, but existing code is not affected by any such change.
Using the GPL (copyleft) to creepingly subvert copyright is at face value a good idea, but it puts you in a position where you have to actually enforce and defend copyright, and I don't want to be in that position. If copyright was abolished, then you could not force me to open the code of a proprietary MediaWiki fork, though you could reverse engineer it and copy it freely. The ultimate goal of the GPL is to replace the copyright regime on software with a copyleft regime, whereas I'd prefer to get rid of the regimes altogether.
Though not typically, in this instance I find myself agreeing with the libertarian view ("Do whatever you want") more than with the socialist one ("Sir, please give us your password so that we can share your code with the community"). I advise anyone who uses the GPL to think about whether they are willing to enforce it. If so, then the GPL (especially after the web service "bugfix") is the best choice of license.
In any case, this is not something we should fight about. In the short term, the differences are minor.
Regards,
Erik
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org