Whilst TWiki only contained Code copyrighted by Peter Thoeny this wasn't possible - a copyright owner cannot infringe against his/her own rights. ( from my second comment below in case anyone misunderstands the tone: After all like everyone else I have no doubt this is not a deliberate breach. )

However TWiki.org is now in breach of the GPL, and has been for some time - unless all TWikiContributors have agreed to the breaches. Since some of my code has now been included I feel this needs to be raised - the redistribution of such code in breach of the GPL is not acceptable. (Note: the code I have place on TWiki.org isn't in fact GPL'd - it has been included in a GPL'd work without explicit authorisation - in fact with an explicit statement to the opposite - I have only released patches - these are copyright unless stated otherwise. This is a well established principle.)

Rather than waffle on , I'll get straight to the point - my code being included is not the problem - the problem is the CVS distribution, and CVS based alpha releases are in breach of the GPL.

Section 3 of the GPL states:

> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

The preferred form for making modifications to TWiki is a working TWiki system. TWiki's source code includes the templates & minimal webs. The functionality of the program is incomplete & therefore the source is incomplete. (For example registration, Site Web, Know web, etc are all part of the source of TWiki) The phrase "preferred form" is of course the debatable point. I very much doubt any other TWiki developers simply work on just the CVS tree. (Consider that people supply patches to TWiki's functionality in terms of templates and data - some are further applied. (and then source is only made available under a restriction of the GPL) )

The CoreTeam have the tools at their disposal (I've provided them on the TWikiAlphaRelease page) to rectify this issue.

This also means the current CVS tree is also in breach of the GPL - if you take just that distribution source then you are recieving an incomplete version.

I would urge the CoreTeam to consider their options here. These include (non-exhaustive list):

For the CVS tree:

• Revoke anonymous CVS access (Does this breach sourceforge hosting requirements)
• Copy the required minimum webs into the CVS tree
• Include a tarball of the webs suitable for unpacking with basic instructions as to how to do this
• ...

• Supply with minimal functional webs
• Supply with complete functional webs (if this is chosen then this is the simplest route)
• ...

An alternative would be for the core team to provide the main TWiki distribution under a NoRegisterDownload policy and state that the preferred form of modification (assuming it really is the preferred one - this would surely have to go to a vote) is to download a full most recent distribution and patch it automagically using the CVS checkouts. The requirement to register for download of the main code over and above the TWikiAlphaRelease is a further breach of GPL section 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

Other options the CoreTeam has are:

• To remove the GPL'd code from TWiki from developers who have not authorised the CoreTeam to breach the GPL with their code in this way.
• To ask contributors of patches to explicitly assign copyrights back to either Peter Thoeny, or form a non-profit group to assign the copyrights to.

Note: until this is resolved, TWiki cannot claim to be GPL compliant, and is neither FreeSoftware nor OpenSource.

-- MichaelSparks - 04 Aug 2003

I'm sure this is an unintended omission. Exactly what should the CoreTeam do to comply with the GPL? Would it minimally be just a case of including the right (read 'preferred') webs in the CVS alphas? I doubt that they would have a problem with this. Its good that you have provided the code to help with this.

-- MartinCleaver - 04 Aug 2003

Don't you think this is a bit over the top? Modifications are supposed to be patches against the latest production release, which so happens to be the current version that users are supposed to be using. That version of TWiki can be freely downloaded from any of these sites:

Get your TWiki here!

But if you're concerned about knowing (or documenting for the suits) that you got the real thing from the proper place, you get it by filling out the form at twiki.org. There's nothing unusual, mysterious, restrictive, or in breach of GPL here that I can see.

Come on now, people who are working on an open source project are not obliged to make available the code while they working on it. Many do, to encourage help from others coding and testing, but AFAICS there's obligation to distribute alpha or beta code.

Just because a community doesn't bother to actively distribute code that the whole open source community owns under GPL doesn't mean that it is being withheld. Nor does it mean that any particular community member, no matter what the size of their personal input, is obliged to provide a particular style of download facility.

All of this GPL and free software rhetoric is about doing things for yourself, and not blaming others but getting in there and making things better by yourself, and sharing what you have. Put your servers where your razor tongues are. You've studied the license well. If you really do believe in the GPL, it's going to be up to you to make it work how it should. Use it or lose it.

-- SueBlake - 04 Aug 2003

I am not blaming others for not writing code. I am not asking others to do things - other than adhere to licenses. If I freely share the code I provide, I expect that TWiki.org will adhere to the same license they are expecting others to abide to. Peter has after all in the past expressed an interest in distributing a closed version of TWiki and then not done so due to GPL/etc considerations. I would expect the same of anyone else.

I am not going over the top - these are simple facts. They might be an uncomfortable facts, but they are nonetheless facts. I provided options the core team has for rectifying their breach. SueBlake - you do realise that breaching license terms like this actually breaches Sourceforge's own terms of use in multiple ways ? Furthermore regarding your comment: " it's going to be up to you to make it work how it should" what do you think this is? Since I'm not on TWiki's CoreTeam (and nor do I wish to be - look at MartinCleaver's abusive signature for example) I cannot rectify these problems unless I either:

• Step over the current etiquette of not posting a full TWiki tarball as an attachment. Why don't I do this ? Respect for Peter et al's wishes.
• Make a formal complaint regarding copyright violations to Sourceforge. This I feel is over the top, and wish to resolve this issue in the most sensible way - by stating there's a problem and providing options for solutions. I am not saying which option the CoreTeam should take - Peter and co have shown some imagination in the past which I applaud. I trust them to make a considered response - as they always do. (eventually)

I am raising the issue - and this is intended amicably - since it is worth doing. I don't think people should breach Peter et al's copyrights as they license them under the GPL, and nor do I think Peter et al should breach contributor's copyrights as they license them to TWiki.org.

After all like everyone else I have no doubt this is not a deliberate breach. Or would we rather just plainly sail along until someone comes along who doesn't want to do things amicably?

-- MichaelSparks - 04 Aug 2003

This depends somewhat on whether you consider the content of the bundled TWiki webs to be code or data. Since there are some forms that are required for scripts to work properly (e.g. registration form, change password form), and the TWiki pages include embedded searches and so on, there's certainly an argument for considering them as code, and I think this does need to be addressed as a possible contravention of the GPL. However, there's also the argument that the bundled TWiki webs are analogous to a separate process using IPC to communicate with a GPLed program - for example, like Linux applications running on the GPLed Linux kernel. So I don't think this is a matter of pure fact, there's also some interpretation of the GPL involved here.

If the bundled TWiki webs are considered as code, then we do indeed have a significant GPL issue that needs resolution - I don't find the 'alphas are patches' argument very convincing. To solve this, NoRegisterDownload is a good option, in my view. Interestingly, anyone with Google can already find links to the TWiki ZIP file that bypass registration - try searching for 'twiki freebsd freshports', for example, which provides one URL that is actually on TWiki.org... Hence NoRegisterDownload is really already in effect, it's just not documented and partly reliant on third parties, which is not very satisfactory.

And I agree that a certain highly-visible signature is currently annoying - promoting a particular point of view in signatures all over TWiki is likely to prove counter-productive, but it's his choice.

-- RichardDonkin - 04 Aug 2003

Why do alpha releases not contain webs? To force people to download a full release in order to use the code. This means in order to use the code the user must go through a further restriction. When developing TWiki code the preferred environment is a fully working TWiki environment. The supplied webs provide this fully working environment (minimal webs would as well). Furthermore they are required for a running system. Both the OSI & FSF take the firm stance that a distribution of source alone is not sufficient to be compliant - the software as supplied must be complete enough to use as it is designed to be used.

"""The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. """

Note the part I have put in bold. ie the clear point here is that if the source code is distributed, aside from OS related matters the code should be usable -- and installable -- as is. The fact that people supply patches to the templates, and other parts of TWiki lends credence that they are part of the system beyond the simple files indicated above.

• Note: the alpha releases cannot simply sync from TWiki.org (they could if raw=debug really was raw)
• Neither can the templates be sync'ed.

As a result the alpha releases (and CVS snapshots, and even CVS access therefore) is therefore in breach of section 3. This isn't interpretation - it has been stated many a time that the reason the alpha release is not a full release is to force people to download a full version. (At which point you're placing extra restrictions on users in breach of the GPL, section 6 - No register? No download.)

This is also aside from the fact that merging a patch into a GPL'd project despite an express statement from the copyright owner that this should not happen is in fact a breach of copyright law as well as the GPL. (As well as sourceforge's own terms of use) Generally I'm pretty laid back about these things - after all I have been using TWiki for 4 years, and support in general the conservatism of the CoreTeam's acceptance of new features, but some things are difficult to overlook.

-- MichaelSparks - 04 Aug 2003

Anyone can express a wish that a GPL program not be distributed, or be used only by maiden aunts on Sundays, without breaking the GPL. The GPL ensures that it is only a wish. A person who voluntarily complies with that wish cannot substantiate the claim that the program has been withheld in a way that breaches the GPL, because the GPL has already ensured that there is no obligation to comply. For example I have seen GPL works that asked for a beer or a postcard, but it was not compulsory, the GPL ensures that. If your ethics oblige you to comply with such wishes you have an issue with your ethics and the wisher, nothing to do with the GPL which overrides additional obligations. Call a spade a spade to make it a better tool.

I acquired a zip archive, which contained in its root directory a license document. That license applies to the whole archive. There is nothing anywhere that indicates otherwise. The whole lot appears to be under GPL. It is the official release archive of a GPL work, complete with license. I can do with it (the archive) as I please. So can you. If you don't share, it's nobody else's fault. If others don't, it's not any one person's fault.

Sourceforge rules are a separate issue which I know nothing about, except that it would be possible to infringe them without infringing the GPL and vice versa.

-- SueBlake - 04 Aug 2003

Sue -- you appear not to understand the issue in hand, or are willfully ignoring it.

• The TWikiAlphaRelease contains code produced by many people.
• Copyrights on that code are held by many people, not just Peter Thoeny.
• Peter Thoeny & TWiki.org can only redistribute work as GPL, and hence part of TWiki that work that has been provided as GPLd.
• In the case of code I have made available for review, this has been taken and stamped as GPL without my authorisation, and against my express wishes .
  • The GPL does not give you this right
• The TWikiAlphaReleases are in breach of section 3 of the GPL, unless TWiki.org has been granted explicit permission by the copyright holders (note, this includes all TWikiContributors who have contributed code under the GPL) of respective patches to distribute their work in this way.

I would respectfully suggest you understand that someone taking my work in an unfinished state, including it in a GPL work without authorisation, and against my express wishes is highly insulting. I am not going around complaining and whinging about process. I am not just saying "TWiki should do this, TWiki should do that, CoreTeam should do this", I'm trying to contribute time, effort & code. If it's ignored that's fair enough - no skin off anyone's nose.

• If my copyright is breached against my express wishes then I find that downright disgusting.
• However if the redistribution was occuring in a GPL compliant manner then I would not be as disgusted for various reasons.
  • However MY changes are NOT being distributed in a GPL compliant manner. So not only have my changes been misappropriated despite my express wishes they are not being distributed in accordance with the only license under which I would allow TWiki.org to redistribute them.

This is a breach of copyright law, like it or not. If TWiki.org starts supplying TWikiAlphaReleases (or ceases them altogether) in a GPL compliant manner then I will grant TWiki.org the right to distribute my work under the GPL. If TWiki.org does not comply with the GPL then I shall have to ask CoreTeam to remove my copyrighted code from their "GPL" source code tree.

As to why I don't set up an alternative download? This would not stop TWiki.org, and CoreTeam not being responsible for fulfilling their obligations to patch contributors under the GPL.

-- MichaelSparks - 04 Aug 2003

The TWikiAlphaRelease code as supplied does actually work, and doesn't need any other scripts to compile it, but it works a lot better with the bundled webs, and it's fair to say that the ZIP with bundled webs is the 'preferred form' for actually installing TWiki and does have some things resembling code (e.g. web forms). Since you have contributed code to the core, I think you have quite a strong argument, and I would not want to see your code removed.

I believe that changing to NoRegisterDownload (perhaps with optional registration, making it clear it's not required) would make the alpha releases GPL compliant, by simply linking from TWikiAlphaRelease to (1) the most recent production ZIP file for TWiki, including bundled webs, and (2) the alpha release, as now. Do you agree this would resolve this apparent GPL violation?

Putting the latest version of the bundled webs into the alpha release would be much harder - one of the reasons that TWiki releases take a long time is that the bundled webs need to be copied into a beta area and cleaned up somewhat. However, it might be a good idea if the bundled webs (as of last beta release) are checked into CVS, and then automatically made available via anonymous CVS and TWikiAlphaRelease ZIP downloads.

Personally, I think NoRegisterDownload would be a good thing for many reasons, but I'd like to see some other CoreTeam and community members comment on the GPL violation issue and how they feel about NoRegisterDownload, particularly PeterThoeny.

-- RichardDonkin - 05 Aug 2003

I believe are you misunderstanding and misinterpreting the GPL. Bringing your grievances forward in this manner does nothing but hurt TWiki. I took offense at your writing, and the previous version of this post reflected that.

On your first point, "source code" means the "preferred form." That is, source code itself is the preferred form. That means not object code or assembly code or binary code. Source code. Which is provided when you download the distribution.

On your second point, the clause about further restricting their rights means you cannot add additional licensing clauses to a source code distribution. You're welcome to require people register for downloads, or charge them $1000 to get TWiki in the first place, or make them pay for shipping and handling on the source CDs and require that they send you a written letter requesting it. You just can't add additional clauses to the GPL.

TWiki.org is not in violation of any of this. TWiki.org is well within its rights to require registration. Anonymous CVS downloads of the source code is a-okay by the GPL. You are well within your rights to download TWiki releases and post them as you please.

-- VitoMiliano - 05 Aug 2003

Vito, your comment here includes ad hominem attacks that going to start a flame war - by all means disagree with Michael's position on GPL violation, but don't resort to personal attacks. Waiting for 10 minutes before posting is a good idea. Michael clearly feels very strongly about this issue, and seems to be deleting much useful work from TWiki.org as a result, but he has at all times tried to state an argument based on reason. Are you really happy that he is now deleting the long awaited TWikiUnixInstaller, which was making great progress?

My position is between yours and Michael's - I can see an argument for the bundled webs being considered as 'preferred form' for TWiki development, however I think this remains debatable. Just because you use the GPL a lot doesn't necessarily make your viewpoint correct.

I hope everyone can cool down a bit and discuss the merits of this possible GPL violation rather than resorting to name calling.

-- RichardDonkin - 05 Aug 2003

Michael: You seem to take this very personal, I feel sorry for that. I will get back to you shortly in regards to your claim (yesterday I had other priorities). For now could I ask you to sit back and think it over before deleting more stuff. As a temporary measure I denied you to change topics. (of corse, if you feel strongly about this you could delete more stuff using a different user name). If you want to address me personally send me an e-mail; if you want to address the CodevCommunity send an email to the twiki-dev mailing list.

-- PeterThoeny - 05 Aug 2003

You're right, Richard. I apologize to Michael, and have removed my inappropriate comments.

-- VitoMiliano - 05 Aug 2003

I must say this all seems rather sad

I am not clear if TWiki is in violation of the GPL. If it is, then I think most people would regard it is a minor transgression and there is clearly a will to deal with it. I note a strong concern above that we have no right to incorporate contributions on Codev into TWiki (GLPed or not). Thinking about it I guess that it is not explicity stated on Codev that contributions may be added to the core. We should reviw this. However, without gettig too legalisatic, I would think the intent was clear - Codev largely exists to allow contributers to supply code ideas and patches to TWiki.

I note that several times in the past PeterThoeny has checked on our right to incorporate code into TWiki e.g. covered images and JavaScript. In other words adherance to GPL and free software is seen a very important to TWiki.

-- JohnTalintyre - 05 Aug 2003

The problem is that there is no (felt) reciprocity. You contribute a patch, and if it get accepted, you get a "patch is now in alpha, with enhancements"... and you get the feeling to have been "stolen" as the alpha is some kind of black box that other users will only see in one year or more, as there is no simple way for them to upgrade regularily , and the word "alpha" do not encourage people to try it in real conditions.

Also, as a patch author, I issue patches against the current stable, and when asked to provide patches against the alpha, it is a bit difficult as installing an alpha is cumbersome, and potentially very different from the stable (how much has changed in a year?).

This seems to plead towards a regular release of the "current TWiki", with clearly separated tracks for major redesign, but we should be able to issue stable releases every month ideally.

-- ColasNahaboo - 06 Aug 2003

the following has been cross-posted from the twiki developers mailing list by MattWilkie on 06 Aug 2003

From: Michael Sparks [zathras@hwackety.STOPSPAM.com]
Sent: 2003 August 06 4:17
To: twiki-dev@listsPLEASENOSPAM.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [TWiki-Dev] Re: GPL debate (fwd)

Since I cannot post to TWiki.org at present, neither to remove my comments (not others (*)), nor to reply to comments being made there I'm posting here. Apologies in advance to those who view this as spam. I'll limit myself to this one post, I'll try and stay on point,

(*) possibly deleted too much from TWikiUnixInstaller

For those who disagree, please listen to the points before judging rather than simply assuming I haven't read the GPL. I have. And the GNU manifesto in full (some of which I find laughable TBH, but worth reading -- there is some good stuff there :), and analysed many other licenses for work (to give a technical & social viewpoint rather than legal, since many have wider, more cunning implications - like the GPL - some in a negative way), as well as "forced" at least one OEM/Hardware Webcache manufacturer to stay on the right side of the GPL with regard to Linux (they wanted to release binary only version changes...).

I'm no more an authority than anyone. But I do have an opinion, and it covers my work - given my work has been included in TWiki. (Not as much, or substantial as others obviously) I think I'm qualified to talk about my own work quite frankly. Is TWiki.org in breach of the GPL? IMO, based on section 3, then yes - I am not a lawyer and I very much doubt anyone on this list is either, so by definition it's an opinion, but unsuprisingly I view it as fact. (Anyone who disagrees who isn't a lawyer probably sees it 180 degrees opposed.)

It is in a minor way, but still in breach. Given Peter et al's wish to adhere as closely to the GPL, and more importantly I believe Peter et al's wish to stick to the spirit of the GPL I thought it worth raising. (Peter could for example only release upgrades for code he's written as non-GPL patches perfectly legally) I didn't raise it to attack. I didn't raise it to say "you're doing lots of stuff wrong". I raised it because it's worth raising.

Is TWiki.org in breach of copyright at the moment? Definitely. Work that was explicitly marked as not for inclusion and requested not to be included was included. For anyone who doubts this, I suggest you read the various comments on http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html linked from OpenSourceLicensing. This is very different from putting a patch out and saying "hey, include this or else!". The patch was up for discussion.

Obviously when that particular feature was complete I would obviously have said "hey, if you like this, take it". Back in my Inktomi days if I ever did this I was careful to indicate that the work was GPLd. Both myself and other patch contributors have been remiss on that point to date. I for one regret that.

TWiki.org being in minor breach of the GPL is something the majority of people overlook (some to the extent they don't believe it's happening (*)) - I don't know if the stated benefits to the community are real - personally I have my doubts. (*) Others don't believe it for other reasons of course.

Someone breaching my copyright despite my express wishes? In general I wouldn't accept that as acceptable behaviour. If it was nabbed by a GPL project - then that's generally rather different - after all it's essentially a different form of publishing/distribution in many respects. It's not as if it's generally being taken and hidden for personal profit after all.

If however it's nabbed by a GPL project, without my consent, which is also in my eyes breaching the GPL (inadvertantly) then that's one step too far.

Why, oh why, do I see it that way? Section 3 simply states that the code must be distributed in it's preferred form for working on.

This is a point of contention. Two sides can have different opinions on what this means and both be right.

If I was distributing code (any code) under the GPL, then the preferred form for working on that code, is my preferred form for working on.

It should be clear from my work on the TWiki Installer that my preferred form of working for TWiki is on either pristine full installations of TWiki or a working in use (often laptop) version. Either way my preferred form of working on the code is a working distribution.

• Therefore if I was to redistribute TWiki to others then I would be required by the GPL to supply them with a full distribution. This is why the installer does not even contain an alpha release. (Even though that would be in keeping with the spirit of TWiki.org I believe)

• If this isn't the preferred form I am within my rights to supply just a crippled version, as TWiki.org does.

It is clear from how TWiki.org currently distributes TWiki that a working system is not their preferred form of developing TWiki - they develop TWiki in complete isolation to the standard webs, and the UI - registration, WebPreferences, etc - which is then tested with personally developed minimal versions (perhaps?) or moved to a working system later for testing.

• If this point really is the case, then it could be argued that TWiki.org is not breaching section 3.

However TWiki.org currently distributes code under the GPL that includes my work. (Which is nice in some respects I admit - I do hope people find it useful - no point in showing it to anyone else otherwise, but extremely annoying in many others for reasons previously mentioned)

If TWiki.org distributes my work under the GPL, they must take into account how my work is licensed to them. (The in-appropriately added code is not the only code of mine in TWiki after all) I license work to them under the GPL. This means they must take into account my preferred means of working on the code as well, and adhere to that restriction as well.

• This may clearly be a bone of contention.

It's a boundary case, a minor point. It has been made to matter to me.

I have been flamed back and forth, despite a) having personal copyright breached b) other people's ability to make changes as easily as me under the GPL is being hampered - breaching section 3. So I thought "bugger this" - this hassle isn't worth it and decided to retract all my contributions to TWiki.org. It's sad to me as well.

2 years ago I would've jumped to be on the Core Team - I'm not saying that because I should be - I no longer have any desire to be - but back then I was a lot more enthusiastic. 3 months back when Martin Cleaver contacted me after the CoreTeam nominations discussions I was curious and started contributing code and refactoring, rather than rhetoric (I hope) back - back then I naively still went "ooh that'd be nice".

However over the past 3 months I see the (in my eyes) seemingly constant attacks on the way TWiki is being developed (I applaud Peter for somehow finding the time to try and address this), along with increasingly personal attacks on the Core Team. (I may have disagreements about the best way to develop TWiki, but it's not my project.) As a result I changed my opinion from "ooh that'd be nice" to "not on your nelly" - after all you don't need to be on the core team to contribute positively. The same probably goes for a public fork I've been badgered by some people for.

As noted on TWiki.org, I don't think the breach is deliberate or intended - just overlooked. With regard to the inclusion I think it's more a "I think this looks great I'll nab it" and forgetting/missing the notices about not for inclusion rather than anything else. This is a great motivation, and I'm pleased it's considered useful. As an analogy though - spilling someone's pint down the pub though by accident whilst rushing to the loo is still just as annoying - even though it's not intended as wrong...

I personally have very much appreciated John, Richard, Peter, Mike, Andrea, & Nicholas's contributions over the years. You have made TWiki move in 4 years.

%STARTTEASE% Oh, and on a personal nit, can someone please change "Huston we have a problem" to either, "John Huston we have a problem", or "Houston we have a problem" ? Possibly "Anjelica Huston"? Mind you using someone's surname first in this context strikes me as almost Naked Gun-esque. %ENDTEASE%

I'll shut up now.

Michael.

[ Permission to repost this, in whole, on TWiki.org is granted to anyone on the list, the CoreTeam are explicitly granted the right the remove it too if anyone posts it there (I don't have to state that, they have that right anyway, but saying that to point out if they do they do, if they don't they don't). Personally I think it's too long to post. ]

> Some comments though:
> * I'm not going to stop using TWiki, it's great - yours Peter's, John's
> work over the years is very much appreciated. As a result I'll
> probably still contribute things back in some form or another, but
> probably only complete features I'm happy with being included.
>
> * I don't think the point under dispute is malicious/deliberate/any ill
> intent. Indeed I believe it to be with the best of intentions trying
> to adhere as best as possible.
>
> FWIW, I understand why I'm locked out of TWiki.org at the moment -
> even though I am only deleting contributions I have made.
> (Deliberately excluding refactorings)

---

TWiki-Dev mailing list TWiki-Dev@listsPLEASENOSPAM.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/twiki-dev

Dear Michael,

I have read your posts rather fast and I hope I am not missing your main point.

The TWiki.org webs and CVS are used to develop TWiki. We are releasing all source code, either in zipped or as patches or as alpha code to the public, and then I feel that we are ok with GPL regarding the distribution of the source code (though I agree that the registration could be felt as a restriction).

The point I care about is that you explicitly submitted your code with a notice saying "don't include this in TWiki" and that the code has been included.

I, anyway, think that the inclusion has been made in good faith, as all us codevelopers see Codev as the development arena where the TWiki proposals and code snippets boils together to distill a better TWiki.

Thus I think that your code should be removed from the CVS alpha until you will give us explicit permission to include it.

I would not like you to be so angry with all of us to remove your posts or to stop contributing ... a lot of Codev people surely thinks your contributions are interesting and useful.

Please continue working together with us.

AndreaS

-- AndreaSterbini - 07 Aug 2003

If I understand what I have read above, there are two issues here, raised by MichaelSparks:

1. Some twiki distributions may be in breach of the GPL, because they do not contain everything necessary to use them,
   1. e. because they may not contain complete source. For example, a distribution that contains Perl source code, but not all of the template files necessary.
   • Seems to me that this is easy enough to fix, e.g. if the missing parts are accessible via twiki.org

1. Twiki is being distributed as GPL'ed code, but MichaelSparks believes that he has not licensed the code he has contributed to twiki under the GPL. (Or at least not some of the code under development; possibly not at all.)
   • This is more serious. Open source projects need to make it clearly understood that code contributed to the project for release in the distribution will be subject to the standard license for the distribution; and contributors need to understand that by the act of contributing code to the distribution, they are agreeing to such a license.

-- AndyGlew - 08 Aug 2003

I did some reading here, on GNU.org GPL FAQ.

• Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
  • No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

IANALayer, but IMHO:

• MichaelSparks technically can edit pages to delete what he wrote (text), but it's considered unethical and PeterThoeny in emergency disabled him to edit pages to prevent Michael from damaging (I almost say vandalizing) Twiki pages. Harsh, but OK with me, in interest of Twiki community as a whole.
• MichaelSparks released code on twiki.org under GPL and he cannot prevent Twiki.org or any other party to distribute it, or adapt any parts of it and discard other parts as CoreTeam is free to do under GPL. So Michael has no rights to remove links to it. Once under GPL, this right cannot be withdrawn. See
• but Twiki.org licence.txt is in slight breach of GPL, which did not allowed Michael to distribute/modify Twiki sources as Michael is free to do under GPL. So let's MakeLicenceGPL to remove this issue, enable Michael's freedoms guaranteed by GPL which CoreTeam has with his code.
• For text in twiki pages, GNU has Free Documentation License which is better suited than GPL for manuals.

But we need to fix Twiki.s licence: MakeLicenceGPL

-- PeterMasiar - 13 Aug 2003

• Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

Note the point of that particular question - exclusive use. Licenses by companies to individuals often include a non-exclusivity clause - "we provide you with non-exclusive rights to this program....". The reason for this is because if you purchase a washing machine, you have exclusive use. If you purchase software you do not purchase an exclusive license to use the software.

• Note: This does not mean that a copyright holder cannot release software as GPL to one party and BSD to another, and binary only to another. It just means that if you've released the code as GPL to one party you cannot later take away those rights in favour of giving exclusive rights to another party. (The copyright holder can cease redistribution themselves of course - since they are not bound by the license since they can do anything with their work allowed by law - which includes the rights other people need a license (GPL/BSD/Research) for.)

A copyright holder is the only person who can issue licenses for the material they have copyrights over (generally anything they write, paint, photograph, etc), and the only people bound by those licenses are those who would be in breach of copyright laws if they did not stick to the license.

Some examples:

• If you buy a picture, and you want to modify it (draw a beard on say ) then you may - no license from the copyright holder is required - since you are not copying or redistributing the picture or the modified picture. If you wanted to redistribute the modified picture, then you need permission. (Simple framing of the picture is not considered a derivative by most courts it seems BTW)
  • You are allowed however to place clear plastic over the picture, draw on the plastic, and then sell that piece of plastic to others - this is because you are not performing any act that breaches copyright law. That picture on the plastic would be copyrighted to you, and to redistribute it or copy it, others need a license from you.

• If you download a webpage copyrighted (say by the RIAA ), you can take the HTML, look at it, change it, and use it - so long as you are not redistributing/copying it.
  • You are allowed however to produce a file that says "change all 'e's to '3'", change all t's to 7's, change all 'ck's with xx's, etc". (To make a silly "leet speek" version say...) That file can clearly be automated - or be a set of instructions to a standard program that performs modifications. Such file/set of instructions doesn't contain the original HTML, and hence no license from the original author (in this example the RIAA ) would be required. Furthermore, if others wanted to copy, redistribute or release a derivative version, they require a license from you, not the RIAA.

• If you buy a copy of Microsoft word, you are legally allowed to patch & modify that installation without agreeing to their license - since copyright law doesn't cover those acts - clearly you can't redistribute it/copy it nor republish a derivative work.
  • Clearly again, if you release a set of instructions for a program to automate this process, you may do so - since such a set of instructions would not be a derivative of Microsoft Word. (The modified result of applying those instructions is, but not the set of instructions for modification)

• If I download a copy of TWiki, if I do nothing other than that governed by fair use - which is to say this:
  • Run the application
  • Modify a personal version that I do not redistribute to others
  • Produce sets of instructions which says how to modify an installation of TWiki - but does not contain TWiki itself. Such a set of instructions may make fair use of the contents of the files it modifies - in the same way fair use normally works; a maximum of ~5% of the original work - the fair use copy may not be substantiative. In the case of a patch file against TWiki you are normally talking around 0.05% of the total work. This means the code of TWiki in a patch file is actually fair use, and therefore no license from the copyright holder is required for redistribution.
  Then the copyrights over those sets of instructions remains with me. If I redistribute an entire TWiki.pm file then that is not fair use, since that is a substantiative copy.

It is this final point which is why the FSF requires people to assign copyright over patches applied to the GNU project to the FSF. Many people cannot do this - they might not own the copyright and local legal systems might preclude this (In some countries you cannot re-assign copyright).

This is where we come to recent events.

• In the absence of a license you are limited to standard copyright law - that is if you can legally recieve something then you may use it, make personal modifications, and so on - so long as you are not substantiatively copying and redistributing the work.
• A patch file is an independent work, and I would say has merit - not all patches get applied to the TWiki core or to any version other than the original author's TWiki - however they DO show useful information, and show ways of doing things people don't expect. It is an independent work designed to be used with another work, but nonetheless it is independent.
• Thus the copyright subsists with the author of the patch, and any license to redistribute the patch must come from the person who owns the copyright on that patch. If no such declaration exists in some form, then redistribution by third parties isn't allowed. Plain and simple.
  • In the case of the patches you specificially claim I released as GPL - I did not - I did not provide a license file (hence copyright subsists), I did not provide a blanket statement, and did provide a (misinterpreted) request not to apply the patch. AND even if I had indicated that it was GPL'd then since I distributed it to TWiki.org, and have rights to remove links, I can remove those links and cease redistribution of a patch. (A copyright holder is legally within his rights to do this anytime.) In the case of a released, GPL'd work however, anyone else would be within their rights to re-continue redistribution.

This lack of declaration by developers causes a BIG problem for TWiki.org. In many respects TWiki.org would actually be best stating that people must redistribute back to TWiki.org a full TWiki.pm file, or a patch including an explicit declaration of release of copyright. In my case, I'll try and get people to see reason - which is what I tried first before being attacked, or try to take a better stance (as I did in this case when I realised people weren't going to listen) on the issue if things go wrong. However, in the worst case scenario you get an IBM vs SCO style event.

This is why I assigned my patches recently (after this argument flared up) under the (GPL compatible) modified BSD license to the Core Team, and patches attached to TWiki.org to everyone else under the GPL. This actually moves the usage of the patches I've produced into a situation that is non-ambiguous, and matches expectation of use. It also eradicates (one would hope) of an IBM vs SCO style event with regard to TWiki. Likewise, by stating that my comments on TWiki.org are FDL'd (actually I need to state if there's "covers" and "invariant sections") I move the licensing issues with those into a non-ambiguous situation.

• Before I did this, the licensing situation is ambiguous -- by this I mean people expect one thing, but law says another.

If this is problematic, I can re-license the content to TWiki.org, and those using it in a manner that makes Peter & the rest of the CoreTeam's live's easier. They just need to ask. If they want me to GPL my code to them (ie give them less rights than they now have ) then I would respectfully ask them to comply with the GPL license from me to them. They are using contributions in a manner with the BSD license however - which is why I have chosen that style of license. (The modified BSD license is also my preferred license to supply code to others where possible due to the unrestrictive rights it grants a fellow developer, but that's a very different matter)

I'm not a lawyer, but I am required by the work I'm in to have a good working idea of how this works - to protect myself and others.

Furthermore, even a lawyer cannot give a categorically correct statement in such a case - only a judge can. (Think about that for a second) No-one is going there (because it'd be dumb ) which is why I relicensed everything -- to give the Peter and the CoreTeam more options. The issue regarding my code and comments no longer exists. (OK there's a tiny separate one due to the modified BSD/FDL/GPL combo which Peter's investigating - however I expect it not to cause problems since I've investigated this option for my place of work, and it's considered feasible here - after all it's essentially equivalent to assigning copyright to a GPL'd project, and GPL'ing comments. (Note: even the FSF doesn't FDL their gnu.org website (why not?)- they reserve all copyrights, and also claim other people's copyrights (or rather ask for assignment of copyright) for GNU projects. Interesting huh?)

There is also the unintentional side effect of TWiki's license file, which needs resolving, but I'm 100% certain that it's an accident, and have full faith that a sensible solution will happen in the near future.

-- MichaelSparks - 15 Aug 2003

In case anyone missed the note at the top of the page, this has been resolved.

• APPLAUSE

-- - 19 Dec 2003

Great - it's excellent that we can now move forward on a better basis.

-- JohnTalintyre - 22 Dec 2003