Re: Why licenses can -never- be free.

[john@dhh.gt.org]

Buddha Buck writes:
> I assume that there is an implicit license to copy (verbatim) the license
> whenever the work licenses is legally copied (verbatim or not).

The license is normally included as part of the work to which it applies.
Thus the license may apply to itself, depending on the exact wording.  I
don't believe there is any automatic right to copy it, nor any automatic
obligation to do so.

Please keep in mind the difference between the license as a grant of rights
from the author and thus an abstraction, and the license as a
representation of that abstraction.  Perhaps we should use 'license grant'
for the former and 'license document' for the latter.

> But unless there is an explicit license to copy and distribute modified
> versions of the license, or to copy the license verbatim outside of the
> implicit license I mentioned above, there is no license to distribute.

I don't see that.  Assume that I download and untar a package from sunsite.
I get a bunch of files, including one that is named "COPYING".  That file
contains a statement to the effect that I am free to distribute modified
versions of "this work".  I take that to mean that I can modify any of the
source files, the README, the Makefile, etc: why would it not mean the
COPYING file as well?

> Example: Let's say "Buddha's Public License (BPL)" was a DSFG-compliant
> license.  In order to make the license itself DSFG, I would have to add a
> license to it, like:

> "Permission to distribute verbatim copies of the BPL is hereby granted 
> without fee.  Permission to distribute derivative works based on the 
> BPL is hereby granted without fee subject to the restriction that any 
> such work clearly identify that it was derived from the BPL, but may 
> not, in any way, shape, or form, identify itself as the BPL"

> (This I think is a basic "modify-with-name-change" DSFG license.)

> So far so good.

> However, that above license, as simple as it is, is not DSFG.

Of course it is.  It is part of the BPL, which is free.  You don't need to
license each paragraph of a work seperately.

> Unless I provide an explicit license saying you can create derivative
> works.

> This can be extended indefinately.

> Unless we can short-circuit the process somehow, we are stuck at some
> point at having a non-modifiable license somewhere.  The only way I can
> see to do so is to develop a license that is, either directly or
> indirectly, licensed under it's own terms (say, licensing the BPL under
> the BPL).

To make it explicit that a DFDG license is itself DFDG it is sufficient to
include in it a statement such as "The terms of this license apply to the
license itself" or "You are free to distribute copies of this license or
any part thereof".

> I believe the consensus (which I agree) is that that would give the
> lawyers hives, and they could probably find someway to break it.

I don't think the lawyers would have any trouble at all with it.  They
understand self-reference.
-- 
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI