[Debichem-devel] [gnu.org #782239] LGPLv3+additional clauses and GPL-compatibility

[Donald R Robertson III via RT]

> [mbanck at debian.org - Fri Nov 09 09:10:59 2012]:
> 
> Dear FSF licensing,

Thank you for writing to us about this issue.

> 
> The ELPA project is developping a library under a LGPLv3-like license
> consisting of the LGPLv3 and two additional clauses (see below for their
> full copyright statement):
> 
> |- In point 2., clause b) - stating that that you may redistribute
> |  under the terms of the plain GNU GPL - shall NOT apply. In other
> |  words, if you redistribute, you MUST keep the additional permissions
> |  of the LGPL v3 in place.
> |
> |- If you redistribute, you must redistribute under the terms of the
> |  LGPL version specified here. Using later or earlier versions
> |  published by anyone except the ELPA copyright holders is
> |  not allowed.

First, a little background on the LGPL 3.0. The LGPL 3.0 is actually the GPL 3.0 with additional 
permissions. As it states at the beginning, "This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License 
incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by 
the additional permissions listed below." So the terms of the GPL still apply, it's just that the licensor gives additional permissions to use the work in ways that wouldn't ordinarily be GPL 
compliant.

> 
> The first question is: Is the LGPLv3 plus the above two addtional 
> clauses still GPL-compatible, i.e. can the ELPA library be used by other
> GPL'd projects?

The second clause I believe is acceptable; it looks like it is essentially just another way of stating 
that it is LGPL 3.0-only. While we recommend that people license their works under the current version 
plus "any later version", choosing not to do so shouldn't affect whether the work is compatible with 
the current versions of the licenses. It will however make compatibility more difficult when newer 
versions of the licenses come out.

As for the first clause, this sounds to me like a 'further restriction'. Under the GPL, users are free 
to ignore further restrictions on works that include a notice stating that the work is governed by the 
GPL. In that sense, it could still be used in a GPLed library, but it sounds like that would engender 
some pretty ill-will from ELPA. So the better course would be to work with them to update their 
license.

> 
> The rationale for their addtional clauses is the possiblity of GPL
> projects forking their code under the GPL, making it impossible for them
> to use the modifications in their version of the code (as relicensing
> from GPL to LGPL is not possible).
> 
> The second question is: If the ELPA license is not GPL-compatible and if
> the above is a valid concern, could the Free Software Foundation propose
> different language to add to the LGPLv3 in order to make GPLv3-only
> forks usable by the original project, while retaining LGPL-like
> licensing?
> 
> The third question is: If additional language to the LGPL is not
> possible to accomodate the above issues, can the Free Software
> Foundation recommend any other cause of action to the ELPA project?

For the answer to these questions I'll have to talk with RMS. If you know of someone at the ELPA 
project who would be good to talk to about these issues, please put them in contact with me. We want to 
work with them to make sure that their concerns are addressed while ensuring that the licensing is done 
in a proper fashion.

Thanks again for bringing this issue to our attention, and I hope to hear from you soon.

> 
> The full version of the ELPA copyright statement is as follows:
> 
> |Licensing and copyright terms for the ELPA library:
> |ELPA Consortium (2011)
> |
> |****
> |
> |Copyright of the original code rests with the authors inside the ELPA
> |consortium. The copyright of any additional modifications shall rest
> |with their original authors, but shall adhere to the licensing terms
> |set forth below.
> |
> |****
> |
> |The code is distributed under ALMOST all of the the terms of the GNU
> |Lesser General Public License version 3 (LGPL). The full text
> |can be found in the file "lgpl.txt" in this repository. "lgpl.txt"
> |makes reference to the GPL v3, which can also be found in this
> |repository ("gpl.txt").
> |
> |While we are not allowed to alter the license texts as written in those
> |files, IN ADDITION our own license prescribes two important
> |modifications / clarifications to the original lgpl.txt:
> |
> |- In point 2., clause b) - stating that that you may redistribute
> |  under the terms of the plain GNU GPL - shall NOT apply. In other
> |  words, if you redistribute, you MUST keep the additional permissions
> |  of the LGPL v3 in place.
> |
> |- If you redistribute, you must redistribute under the terms of the
> |  LGPL version specified here. Using later or earlier versions
> |  published by anyone except the ELPA copyright holders is
> |  not allowed.
> |
> |****
> |
> |When in doubt, talk to us. What we would like to ensure is that the ELPA
> |code can be used as needed, while providing a strong incentive for
> |others to contribute their modifications back to the original
> |development.
> |
> |****
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael Banck
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Sincerely,

Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110, USA
Phone +1-617-542-5942 
Fax +1-617-542-2652

---