软件再许可

在开源软件开发中，软件再许可指在软件模块的软件许可证不兼容并且需要兼容以进行更大的组合工作時的改變许可证操作。以二进制形式存在的，受版权保护的作品应用于软件源代码的许可证可以包含矛盾的条款。这些要求可能导致无法将多个软件作品的源代码或内容组合起来创建一个新的组合作品。 有时开源软件项目会陷入许可证不兼容的情况。通常，解决这种情况的唯一可行方法是重新许可所有参与的软件部分。为了成功地重新许可，需要得到所有相关版权所有者（通常是开发人员）的许可。虽然在免费和开源领域中，由于涉及许多贡献者，实现所有作者的 100% 覆盖通常是不可能的，但通常假设绝大多数就足够了。例如，Mozilla假设 95% 的作者覆盖率就足够了。自由和开源软件领域的其他人，例如Eric S. Raymond ，就整个代码库的重新许可要求得出了不同的结论。 Mozilla项目和他们的Firefox浏览器是出于许可证兼容性原因成功重新授权的开源项目的早期示例。 Netscape的Communicator 4.0浏览器的源代码最初于 1998 年在Netscape Public License / Mozilla Public License下发布，但被FSF和OSI批评为不兼容。 2001 年左右，时代华纳根据 Netscape 公共许可证行使其权利，并应 Mozilla 基金会的要求，将 Mozilla 中所有在 Netscape 公共许可证下的代码（包括其他贡献者的代码）重新许可为 MPL 1.1/ GPL 2.0/ LGPL 2.1 tri-license ，从而实现 GPL 兼容性。 Vorbis库最初被许可为 LGPL，但在 2001 年，在Richard Stallman的支持下，该许可被更改为BSD 许可，以鼓励他人采用該庫。 由于许可证兼容性，VLC项目还有一段复杂的许可证历史：2007 年，出于许可证兼容性的原因，它决定不將許可證升级到刚刚发布的GPLv3。在 2011 年初 VLC 从Apple App Store下架后，2011 年 10 月，VLC 项目将 VLC 库部分从 GPLv2 重新授权到 LGPLv2，以实现更好的兼容性。2013 年 7 月，VLC 应用程序可以重新提交到根据 Mozilla 公共许可证重新授权的iOS App Store。 7-Zip的LZMA SDK，最初在GNU LGPL和Common Public License下获得双重许可。链接二进制文件例外，由Igor Pavlov于 2008 年 12 月 2 日置于公共领域。 GNU TLS项目在2011年采用了 LGPLv3 许可证，但由于严重的许可证兼容性问题，在2013年将其代码重新授权回 LGPLv2.1。 GNU 自由文档许可证1.2版与广泛使用的知识共享署名-相同方式共享许可证不兼容，例如，对于維基百科来说，这是一个问题。因此，应维基媒体基金会的要求，FSF 在 GNU 自由文档许可证1.3版中添加了一个限时部分，允许使用 GFDL 的特定类型的网站在 CC BY-SA 许可下额外提供其工作。继 2009 年 6 月之后，除了先前使用的GFDL之外，维基媒体基金会通过双重许可将其项目（例如维基百科）迁移到知识共享署名-相同方式共享作为主要许可，改进了与更大的免费内容生态系统的许可兼容性。 2010 年，爲了簡化许可证文本，OGRE项目将其许可证从 LGPL 更改为MIT 许可证。 另一个案例是Google为他们的Android库Bionic将 GPLv2 许可的linux 内核头文件重新许可为 BSD 许可。为了摆脱 GPL，谷歌声称头文件已从任何具有版权的作品中清除，将它们减少为不可版权的“事实”。 但是，休斯顿大学法律中心的法学教授 Raymond Nimmer 对这种解释提出了质疑。 POV-Ray自 1991 年以来，根据 FOSS 不兼容、非商业来源可用的自定义POV-Ray 许可证分发。2013 年 11 月，其在Affero 通用公共许可证第3版（或更高版本）下重新获得许可。POV-Ray 是在 FOSS 许可证被广泛使用之前开发的，因此开发人员编写了自己的许可证，后来由于许可证与 FOSS 生态系统不兼容而成为问题。 2014 年，由于 GPLv3/GPLv2 出現兼容性問題， FreeCAD项目将其许可证从 GPL 更改为 LGPLv2。 2014 年，Gang Garrison 2从 GPLv3 重新授权到MPL ，以提高库兼容性。 此外，Dolphin项目在2015年5月将其许可证从“仅 GPLv2”更改为“GPLv2 或更高版本”，以实现更好的兼容性。 2015 年 6 月，mpv开始了项目的 GPL 许可源代码的重新许可过程，以提高 LGPLv2 下的许可兼容性，并获得了大多数（95%+）的贡献开发者的同意。2016年8月大约可以联系到 90% 的作者并表示同意。2017年10月，转换完成。 2015 年 7 月，为改进许可证兼容性，尤其是与Git的兼容性，Seafile从 GPLv3 切换到 GPLv2。 2015 年，Natron从 MPL 重新授权到GPLv2 ，以实现更好的商业化。 2016 年，MAME在为自己的书面自定义许可和非商业许可条款苦苦挣扎多年后，实现了将代码库重新许可到 BSD/GPL 。 2016 年 8 月，MariaDB公司将数据库代理服务器 MaxScale 从 GPL 重新授权给非 FOSS 但源可用且有时间限制的商业源许可证（英語：Business source license），三年后默认返回 GPL。2017年发布了 1.1 版，并根据Bruce Perens的反馈进行了修订。 很长一段时间以来，D后端源代码都是可用的，但並非以開源許可證授權。因为它是在赛门铁克部分开发的，不能以开源許可證重新许可。2017年4月9日，后端部分也可以重新授权给开源的Boost Software License。 自2004年該遊戲開放以來，微软研究院的太空作战模拟器Allegiance的许可证爲MSR共享源许可证。2017 年 7 月 27 日，更改为 MIT 许可证。 自由软件主题 许可证兼容性 向后兼容性 前向兼容性 许可证扩散 Hancock, Terry. What if copyright didn't apply to binary executables?. Free Software Magazine. 2008-08-29 [2016-01-25]. （原始内容存档于2016-01-25）.  O'Riordan, Ciaran. How GPLv3 tackles license proliferation. linuxdevices.com. 2006-11-10. （原始内容存档于2007-12-18）.  Neary, Dave. Gray areas in software licensing. lwn.net. February 15, 2012 [2016-02-27]. （原始内容存档于2021-11-20）.  O’Riordan, Ciaran. (About GPLv3) Can the Linux Kernel Relicense?. fsfe.org. 2006-10-06 [2015-05-28]. （原始内容存档于2011-07-21）. Someone who works with many lawyers on free software copyright issues later told me that it is not necessary to get permission from 100% of the copyright holders. It would suffice if there was permission from the copyright holders of 95% of the source code and no objections from the holders of the other 5%. This, I’m told, is how Mozilla was able to relicense to the GPL in 2003 despite years of community contributions.  Licensing HOWTO （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） by Eric Steven Raymond&Catherine Olanich Raymond "Changing an existing license [...]You can change the license on a piece of code under any of the following conditions: If you are the sole copyright holder[...]If you are the sole registered copyright holder[...] If you obtain the consent of all other copyright holders[...]If no other copyright holder could be harmed by the change" (accessed on 2015-11-21) Netscape Public License FAQ （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on mozilla.org Licenses by Name - Open Source Initiative. Open Source Initiative. [2014-08-27]. （原始内容存档于2012-06-06）.  On the Netscape Public License （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） by Richard Stallman on GNU.org Mozilla Relicensing FAQ Version 1.1. mozilla.org. （原始内容存档于2010-05-13）. Some time ago mozilla.org announced its intent to seek relicensing of Mozilla code under a new licensing scheme that would address perceived incompatibilities of the Mozilla Public License (MPL) with the GNU General Public License (GPL) and GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).  Relicensing Complete （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on gerv.net by Gervase Markham (March 31, 2006) February 2001 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on xiph.org "With the Beta 4 release, the Ogg Vorbis libraries have moved to the BSD license. The change from LGPL to BSD was made to enable the use of Ogg Vorbis in all forms of software and hardware. Jack Moffitt says, "We are changing the license in response to feedback from many parties. It has become clear to us that adoption of Ogg Vorbis will be accelerated even further by the use of a less restrictive license that is friendlier toward proprietary software and hardware systems. We want everyone to be able to use Ogg Vorbis."" RMS on license change （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on lwn.net Denis-Courmont, Rémi. VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2. videolan.org. [2015-11-21]. （原始内容存档于2015-11-22）. In 2001, VLC was released under the OSI-approved GNU General Public version 2, with the commonly-offered option to use "any later version" thereof (though there was not any such later version at the time). Following the release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) of the new version 3 of its GNU General Public License (GPL) on the 29th of June 2007, contributors to the VLC media player, and other software projects hosted at videolan.org, debated the possibility of updating the licensing terms for future version of the VLC media player and other hosted projects, to version 3 of the GPL. [...] There is strong concern that these new additional requirements might not match the industrial and economic reality of our time, especially in the market of consumer electronics. It is our belief that changing our licensing terms to GPL version 3 would currently not be in the best interest of our community as a whole. Consequently, we plan to keep distributing future versions of VLC media player under the terms of the GPL version 2. [...]we will continue to distribute the VLC media player source code under GPL "version 2 or any later version" until further notice.  Changing the VLC engine license to LGPL. [23 October 2011]. （原始内容存档于2011-10-27）.  Vaughan-Nichols, Steven. No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store. zdnet.com. [23 October 2011]. （原始内容存档于2014-11-15）.  VLC under Mozilla public relaunched. （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on Ars Technica (Accessed 10/10/2013) Browse /LZMA SDK/4.23. SourceForge. [2014-02-12]. （原始内容存档于2022-01-24）.  Pavlov, Igor. LZMA SDK (Software Development Kit). 2013 [2013-06-16]. （原始内容存档于2014-06-09）.  Mavrogiannopoulos, Nikos. The perils of LGPLv3. gnutls.org. 2013-03-26 [2015-11-18]. （原始内容存档于2016-04-02）. LGPLv3 is the latest version of the GNU Lesser General Public License. It follows the successful LGPLv2.1 license, and was released by Free Software Foundation as a counterpart to its GNU General Public License version 3. The goal of the GNU Lesser General Public Licenses is to provide software that can be used by both proprietary and free software. This goal has been successfully handled so far by LGPLv2.1, and there is a multitude of libraries using that license. Now we have LGPLv3 as the latest, and the question is how successful is LGPLv3 on this goal? In my opinion, very little. If we assume that its primary goal is to be used by free software, then it blatantly fails that.  Version 2.99.4 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） (released 2011-07-23)[...] ** libgnutls: license upgraded to LGPLv3 2013-03-14 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos (nmav@gnutls.org) （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） * COPYING.LESSER, README: gnutls 3.1.10 is LGPLv2.1 why-the-wikimedia-projects-should-not-use-gfdl-as-a-stand-alone-license-for-images. [2022-03-23]. （原始内容存档于2022-03-16）.  FDL 1.3 FAQ. Gnu.org. [2011-11-07]. （原始内容存档于2021-05-01）.  Resolution:Licensing update approval - Wikimedia Foundation. [2022-03-23]. （原始内容存档于2018-06-25）.  Wikipedia + CC BY-SA = Free Culture Win! （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on creativecommons.org by Mike Linksvayer, June 22nd, 2009 Licensing update rolled out in all Wikimedia wikis （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on wikimedia.org by Erik Moeller on June 30th, 2009 "Perhaps the most significant reason to choose CC-BY-SA as our primary content license was to be compatible with many of the other admirable endeavors out there to share and develop free knowledge" Licensing FAQ （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on ogre3d.org My evolving view of open source licenses （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） by Steve (2009/09/15) OGRE Will Switch To The MIT License from 1.7 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on ogre3d.org by sinbad (Sep 15, 2009) Google android and the linux headers （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on theregister.com (2011) Android: Sued by Microsoft, not by Linux （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） "Microsoft launches new Android suit, Linus Torvalds' take on Linux kernel headers and Android" on ITworld (March 21, 2011) Infringement and disclosure risk in development on copyleft platforms （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on ipinfoblog.com by Raymond Nimmer (2011) POV-Ray 3.6 Distribution License. Povray.org. [2016-12-12]. （原始内容存档于2021-08-13）.  POV-Ray 3.6 Source License. Povray.org. [2016-12-12]. （原始内容存档于2022-03-23）.  Cason, Chris. Download POV-Ray 3.7.0. 8 November 2013 [11 November 2013]. （原始内容存档于2022-03-25）. Starting with version 3.7, POV-Ray is released under the AGPL3 (or later) license and thus is Free Software according to the FSF definition. […] Full source code is available, allowing users to build their own versions and for developers to incorporate portions or all of the POV-Ray source into their own software provided it is distributed under a compatible license (for example, the AGPL3 or – at their option – any later version).  Prokoudine, Alexandre. LibreDWG drama: the end or the new beginning?. libregraphicsworld.org. 2012-12-27 [2013-08-23]. （原始内容存档于2016-11-09）. [...]the unfortunate situation with support for DWG files in free CAD software via LibreDWG. We feel, by now it ought to be closed. We have the final answer from FSF. [...] "We are not going to change the license."  license. freecadweb.org. 2014 [2015-03-25]. （原始内容存档于2016-12-04）. Licences used in FreeCAD - FreeCAD uses two different licenses, one for the application itself, and one for the documentation: Lesser General Public Licence, version 2 or superior (LGPL2+) […] Open Publication Licence  Gang-Garrison-2/License.txt. GitHub. 2014-11-09 [2015-03-23]. （原始内容存档于2022-03-23）.  Planned license change (GPL -> MPL), Help needed. Gang Garrison 2 Forums. 2014-08-23 [2015-03-23]. （原始内容存档于2018-06-12）. tl;dr: The current license prevents us from using certain nice and (cost-)free libraries / frameworks, so we want to change it. The new license (MPL) would be strictly more free than the old one, and is the same one that's also used by Firefox.  Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+ （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Written by JMC47, MaJoR on May 25, 2015 Possible LGPL relicensing #2033 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on github.com "GPL-incompatible dependencies such as OpenSSL are a big issue for library users, even if the library user is ok with the GPL." The LGPL relicensing is "official" now, and git master now has a --enable-lgpl configure option. （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） by wm4 on github.com switchin-from-gplv3-to-gplv2. [失效連結] haiwen/seafile. [2022-03-23]. （原始内容存档于2022-03-23）.  Why change Natron licence to GPL V2? Can you explain your motivation ? Why change from Mozilla to GPL ? 互联网档案馆的存檔，存档日期2017-03-06. on natron.fr MrKepzieLeader: "The main reasoning is that in the future there will be derivative work spun off Natron, and we want to be able to still control where our source code is going and who is selling it." (Aug 2015) MAME is now Free and Open Source Software （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on mamedev.org (March 4, 2016) the-already-dead-theory on mamedev.emulab.it So why did this annoy me so much? （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on mameworld.info (10/22/13) 10 months later, MAME finishes its transition to open source. Gamasutra. [5 March 2016]. （原始内容存档于2021-08-25）.  MAME is going open source to be a 'learning tool for developers'. Gamasutra (UBM plc). [27 May 2015]. （原始内容存档于2021-08-25）.  bsl （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） "Change Date: 2019-01-01, Change License: Version 2 or later of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation." on mariadb.com (August 2016) MySQL daddy Widenius: Open-source religion won't feed MariaDB （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on theregister.com (August 2016) A new release of the MaxScale database proxy -- essential to deploying MariaDB at scale -- features a proprietary license （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on InfoWorld by Simon Phipps (Aug 19, 2016) sl-1-1 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on perens.com (2017-02-14) releasing-bsl-11 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on mariadb.com by Kaj Arnö (2017) backendlicense.txt. DMD source code. GitHub. [5 March 2012]. （原始内容存档于22 October 2016）.  Reddit comment by Walter Bright. [9 September 2014]. （原始内容存档于2022-03-24）.  D-Compiler-unter-freier-Lizenz （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on linux-magazin.de (2017, in German) dmd Backend converted to Boost License. 7 April 2017 [9 April 2017].  switch backend to Boost License #6680 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） from Walter Bright on github.com allegiancelicense.txt 互联网档案馆的存檔，存档日期7 November 2014. Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement ("MSR-SSLA") Colayco, Bob. Microsoft pledges Allegiance to its fanbase. gamespot.com. 2004-02-06 [2011-07-22]. （原始内容存档于10 December 2013）.  Horvitz, Eric. Allegiance Relicense Letter (PDF). Director, Microsoft Research. 2017-07-28 [2017-07-28]. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2021-10-28）. Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") hereby relicenses the Microsoft Video Game Allegiance source code found at https://github.com/FreeAllegiance/Allegiance/tree/master/src ("Allegiance Source Code") from the current Microsoft Research Shared Source license Agreement (MSR-SSLA) to the MIT license.  FREEING Allegiance, How it Happened (sort of) （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） on freeallegiance.org (2017-07-28)