CUPS 從 GPLv2 變成 Apache License, Version 2.0 了

CUPS 是處理印表機的軟體,在 macOS 以及其他各種 Unix-like 環境下都會使用。

在「CUPS relicensed to Apache v2」這邊看到 relicense 的消息,正式的公告則是在「CUPS License Change Coming」這邊可以看到:

Apple is excited to announce that starting with CUPS 2.3 we will be providing CUPS under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0.

剛好 GPLv2Apache License, Version 2.0 之間不相容,這樣跳過去算是趣味趣味...

美國聯邦法院認定 Open Source License 是有效的強制性合約

這是是韓國廠商 Hancom 在加州被告上法院:「A federal court has ruled that an open-source license is an enforceable contract」。

But after it began using Ghostscript in its software in 2013, Hancom did neither: it did not open-source its software, and it did not pay Artifex a licensing fee.

At the end of 2016, Artifex filed a lawsuit against Hancom in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Hancom 的理由是授權 (license) 不是合約 (contract):

That happened when Hancom issued a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the company didn’t sign anything, so the license wasn’t a real contract.

而法官認定 GPL 是合約的一種:

“Not so,” said Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in her order on the motion on April 25. Corley said the GNU GPL “provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the [GNU GPL]. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract.”

OpenSSL 將轉為 Apache 2.0 License

OpenSSL 最近打算把原本的 license 換成 Apache License, Version 2.0:「Licensing Update」。

主要的原因是希望相容於現有大多數的 open source project:

OpenSSL Re-licensing to Apache License v. 2.0 To Encourage Broader Use with Other FOSS Projects and Products

但這非常詭異啊,舊的 license 最大的問題就是與 GPLv2 不相容,而預定要換的 AL 2.0 也還是不相容啊,搞屁啊。

BMW 遵守 LGPL v2.1 的方法

在「BMW *are* complying with the GPL」看到的,BMW 的車上軟體有用到 LGPL v2.1 的軟體,於是在車上的電腦可以翻到版權宣告:

於是作者就去要 source code,並且在 Twitter 上記錄:

兩個禮拜後,他拿到一封信與一張 DVD:

然後他把這份光碟的內容放上 GitHub:「All the Open Source Software provided by BMW for their i3」。

Software Freedom Conservancy 對 Ubuntu 認定 ZFS 相容性的反對意見

在「Ubuntu 搞定 ZFS 授權問題,將直接納入系統中使用」這邊提到了 Canonical 的律師們認為搞定 ZFS 的授權問題。

Software Freedom Conservancy 則是提出反對意見:「GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux」。

主要是討論 GPLv2CDDLv1 的感染性相容問題。

我是覺得 Ubuntu 的說法比較合理,但這種事情沒上法院前誰都不知道... (而且第一仗的結果會特別重要)

Ubuntu 搞定 ZFS 授權問題,將直接納入系統中使用

Canonical 的人 (Ubuntu 背後的公司) 跟律師研究後決定採用 .ko 的方式 (就像 nvidia.ko 的方式) 納入 ZFS,讓 Ubuntu 的人可以更方便使用,而不是像現在要另外手動做不少步驟:「ZFS Licensing and Linux」。

依照 Canonical 的研究,CDDL (ZFS) 與 GPLv2 (Linux) 的授權方式不同,所以可以找到方法交叉避開衝突:

While the CDDL and GPLv2 are both "copyleft" licenses, they have different scope. The CDDL applies to all files under the CDDL, while the GPLv2 applies to derivative works.

The CDDL cannot apply to the Linux kernel because zfs.ko is a self-contained file system module -- the kernel itself is quite obviously not a derivative work of this new file system.

And zfs.ko, as a self-contained file system module, is clearly not a derivative work of the Linux kernel but rather quite obviously a derivative work of OpenZFS and OpenSolaris. Equivalent exceptions have existed for many years, for various other stand alone, self-contained, non-GPL kernel modules.

至於這種說法是不是成立,至少在還沒上法院認證前也還不知道... 不過看起來 Canonical 是頗有自信,打算將 ZFS 弄進 Ubuntu,上面有不少好用的東西...

TPP (The Trans-Pacific Partnership) 對 GPL 的影響

TPP (The Trans-Pacific Partnership跨太平洋戰略經濟夥伴關係協議) 的黑箱作業在 Wikileaks 揭露後 (TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015) 才被大量解讀,而與預期的一樣,既然會黑箱當然就是見不得人,違反公眾利益的事情。

EFF 有導讀專欄分析,有興趣的可以從這邊下手:「Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement」。

這邊要講的是 TPP 裡對 GPL 的影響:「TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer of or access to source code of software」。

其中這組條款對原始程式碼 (source code) 的約束直接衝擊 GPL 類強制要求 open source 的約束:

Article 14.17: Source Code

  1. No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.
  2. For the purposes of this Article, software subject to paragraph 1 is limited to mass-market software or products containing such software and does not include software used for critical infrastructure.
  3. Nothing in this Article shall preclude:
    (a) the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts; or
    (b) a Party from requiring the modification of source code of software necessary for that software to comply with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with this Agreement.
  4. This Article shall not be construed to affect requirements that relate to patent applications or granted patents, including any orders made by a judicial authority in relation to patent disputes, subject to safeguards against unauthorised disclosure under the law or practice of a Party.
  5. CC BY-SA 4.0 的素材可用於 GPLv3 的作品裡

    Creative Commons 在經過幾個月的分析後,認為 CC BY-SA 4.0 相容於 GPLv3 的要求:「CC BY-SA 4.0 now one-way compatible with GPLv3」。

    In January we officially opened a public consultation (blog post) on CC BY-SA 4.0 unilateral compatibility with GPLv3, in accordance with our ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria. Following additional months of detailed analysis, discussion and deliberation with the Free Software Foundation and other stakeholders, we are very pleased to announce that we have added a declaration of one-way compatibility from CC BY-SA 4.0 to GPLv3 to our compatible licenses page!

    也就是說,CC BY-SA 4.0 的素材可以放到 GPLv3 的作品裡使用並且散佈。不過要注意的是,這是 CC 的分析,而不是法院判決的結果...

    GNU GPLv2 的判例

    OSNews 上看到 GNU GPLv2 在美國的判例:「The GNU GPL to be tested in court」。

    引用的報導在「GPLv2 goes to court: More decisions from the Versata tarpit」這篇,裡面有幾個角色:

    • Ximpleware:撰寫了一套 XML parser,同時以 GPLv2 與商用版權釋出。
    • Versata:在自家產品 DCM software 使用了 Ximpleware 的 XML parser,依照後面的訴訟,看起來是沒有付錢買商用版本。而 DCM software 裡面沒有引用 GPLv2 條款,同時也當然沒有公開程式碼。
    • Ameriprise:付錢給 Versata 購買 DCM software 使用權的公司,另外取得 Versata 的授權,可以找外包商修改 Versata 的 DCM software。
    • Infosys:Ameriprise 的外包商。

    起因在於 Versata 不爽 Infosys 拿他們的軟體開發同性質的軟體,結果告下去後這件事情牽扯到 GPLv2 的授權問題。

    然後 Ximpleware 也跳出來告了所有人,還因為專利關係,告了 Versata 的其他客戶。

    問題分成兩塊討論,一塊是 copyright,另外一塊是 patent。看了一下文章的說明,案子似乎還沒結束,但已經有些結論出來了。

    在 copyright 的部份,法院要求明年二月底前必須上 patch 修正問題。也就是 GPLv2 的感染力是有效的,如果你不打算服從就要賠錢,然後把 GPLv2 程式碼拔乾淨。

    而 patent 的部份有點複雜啊... Ximpleware 的控訴都不成立,不過理由沒有看懂 @_@


    FreeBSD 10 的改變...

    Zite 上看到 FreeBSD 10 的改變:「FreeBSD 10's New Technologies and Features」。

    最耀眼的當然是對 GCC 的宣戰達到高潮,第一個將預設編譯器換掉的 major release。同樣的,也把 GNU 的 libstdc++ 換成 MIT license 實作的 libc++。

    再來是 ISCBIND 被換掉,改用 Unbound 以及 LDNS

    然後 UFS 檔案系統可以透過 growfs(8) 線上長大... XDDD

    其他的改善包括了 iSCSI stack 重寫,PF 防火牆可以善用 SMP 資源,以及 ZFS 的更新。等正式出版後應該還是會等到 10.1 再上 production 吧?感覺 compiler 一換不知道會有多少雷啊 XD