*Please consider adding <[email protected]> to your address book, which
will ensure that our messages reach you and not your spam box.*

*Read and share online:
<[link removed]>.*

Notices accompanying free software, like clear authorship and license
information, can serve an important purpose when they communicate to
users the freedom to run, study, modify, copy, and distribute free
software. However, requirements to preserve notices could conflict
with user freedom. The [GNU General Public License][1] (GPL) includes
a set of rules protecting notices while also ensuring that users have
full software freedom. For example, legal notices cannot be used to
restrict distribution of the program, or its modification. Users have
some flexibility in changing how the program handles notices.

[1]: [link removed]

Software freedom gains strength through complete and good licensing
practices, including informing users of their rights, as it helps
license enforcement in case of a violation. Making sure that the
authorship and license information gets to users is also highly
desired for the program’s hard working free software developers, as
it provides the developers with the recognition they deserve. Thus,
the obligation to preserve legal notices provided was deliberately
drafted into the GNU GPL with the intention to ensure it cannot be
abused to limit software freedom (the exact wording is different
between the [GNU GPLv2][2] and the [GNU GPLv3][3]).

[2]: [link removed]
[3]: [link removed]

Clear authorship and license information notices are a must for users
who want to make sure they are using free software, know what their
exact scope of rights are, and who granted them. Providing this
information is critical to software freedom, which is why the Free
Software Foundation (FSF) [recommends][4] including the notices in the
headers of all source code files, and making interactive programs
output these notices. So, for example, when a program accepts user
commands and presents outputs using the computer screen, the FSF
recommends the program display a brief notice about copyright and
copying permissions when it starts up.

[4]: [link removed]

Every now and then, the FSF's [Licensing and Compliance Lab][5]
receives questions about how the GPL's clauses on notices are
intended to apply in the context of web applications. The specific
clauses that are being referred to in GPLv2 is Sec. 2(c) and in GPLv3
are Sec. 5(d) and Sec. 7(b). A practical example is that a website
operator could want to remove the attribution from a page generated
with the application, or someone could disagree with a website
operator for having removed such attribution. Some developers ask if
it is okay to require that people modifying the software retain links
or logos as a condition to the license. Our answer could be
generalized to say that both the GNU GPLv2 and GPLv3 are intended to
protect certain user interface notices in certain situations. This
does not cover just any notice, and the protection of notices is not
absolute.

[5]: [link removed]


## Different versions of the GPL on the topic

The GNU GPLv2 Sec. 2(c) requires people who modify the interactive
program released under that license to cause it to print or display
legal notices, but they can change where and how it displays those
notices, as long as it does so in some form or another. The license
also includes the following exception:

> "if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print
> such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required
> to print an announcement".

The GNU GPLv3 intends to handle notices in a similar way. It
introduces the term "Appropriate Legal Notices" (ALNs), which are
notices displayed in an interactive user interface that include the
copyright notice. Please note that "copyright notice" is a notice that
contains: the word copyright (or the (C) symbol), the year of first
publication of the work, and the name of the copyright holder. Any
other information is not part of a copyright notice. ALNs may also
include information that:

> "tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to
> the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey
> the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this
> License."

The GNU GPLv3 goes on to introduce a condition on the right to convey
in Sec. 5(d), which is equivalent to the GNU GPLv2 Sec. 2(c):

> "If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work
> need not make them do so."

Similar to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 requirement only applies to the extent
that any ALNs exist and are displayed in the original version.

The GNU GPLv3 then goes on to specifically allow people to *require*
preservation of "specified reasonable legal notices or author
attributions" in the ALNs (Sec. 7(b)). We explained the intent of this
section in footnote 14 of the "[GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft
Rationale][6]," stating:

> "We have broadened the clause slightly to also permit terms that
> require preservation of such notices in the Appropriate Legal
> Notices displayed by interactive user interfaces that comply with
> the requirements of subsection 5d."

[6]: [link removed]

In summary, people who modify programs released under the GNU GPLs can
still change where and how an interactive program displays those
notices. For example, if the original program put these notices at the
bottom of every page, someone modifying the software could conceivably
remove those and have them appear only on a single "About this
software" page.


## GPL-compatible requirements of legal notices and author attributions

Asking people modifying the software to retain other information, such
as a link or logo is fine as a *request*, but it cannot be added as a
requirement on top of the GNU GPLv2 under its clauses covering
copyright and license notices.

The GNU GPLv3 Sec. 7(b) does make it possible to extend the
requirement, but only to cover items that can be deemed as "reasonable
legal notices or author attributions." The terms "legal notice" and
"author attribution" cannot be stretched to cover completely different
items. "Legal notice" normally means a notice advising a person of
their rights or obligations. "Author attribution" is an identification
of the natural person who is the author of the copyrighted work. This
means that, for example, links leading to different materials are not
intended to benefit from Sec. 7(b). Apart from some specific
situations, logos are neither "legal notices" nor "author
attributions" as normally understood.

While we are open to considering arguments that some specific items
could fall within either of the terms, we believe it is necessary to
evaluate how a given requirement to preserve an item aligns with the
intention of the GNU GPL. It has never been the intention of the GNU
GPL to make it hard or impossible for users to run, modify, or
distribute programs under the GNU GPL.


## Requirements to preserve notices that conflict with the intention of the GPL

An additional term requiring that users preserve notices may conflict
with the said intent of the GNU GPL, for example, when it is drafted
in such a way that the user cannot both distribute the program
(including a work based on the program) and satisfy the requirement
placed upon them by the notice.

Consider a term similar to the infamous "advertising clause" of the
[Original BSD license][7], which said that every advertisement
mentioning the software must include a particular sentence. A project
combining a program licensed under such a term with other programs,
especially those licensed under similar terms, would have the
obligation to preserve a plethora of different notices. Satisfying
this requirement would be difficult to say the least, and sometimes
is simply not possible if the program is to remain usable. The Original
BSD license [was deemed GPL-incompatible][8] because of this clause.
In fact, in the 1990s, FSF founder Richard M. Stallman convinced the
dean at the University of California in charge of the BSD project to
change the license on BSD releases to eliminate that clause, which led
to the disappearance of the Original BSD license.

[7]: [link removed]
[8]: [link removed]

For another example, an additional term requiring preserving an
attribution verbatim, even if the program was modified or combined with
other programs, could put users in legal jeopardy. By preserving the
attribution, one may face licensors' claims for misattributing
something to them that they did not write. By modifying or removing
the attribution so that it does not confuse users about who wrote
what, they may face licensors' claims for not following the additional
term.


## Attribution through links or logos consistent with GNU GPLv3 Sec. 7(e)

The GNU GPLv3 Sec. 7(e) should rather be used if a licensor's goal is
to preserve — to some extent — links or logos in the program's
interface. This section acknowledges that the licensor can decline,

> "to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names,
> trademarks, or service marks."

Putting trademarked links or logos in the program's interface and
explicitly declining a trademark license thus gives the trademark
holder a way to stop uses harmful to their reputation, balanced by the
users' option to remove the trademarks in order to distribute
modifications freely. That way of securing attribution (or even
advertising) benefit is consistent with the GNU GPLv3's intent to
protect software freedom. People who modify the software still have
some flexibility to decide how notices included in ALNs are displayed
in their software, and other developers cannot use Sec. 7 to try to
take that flexibility away.

Sincerely,

Krzysztof Siewicz
Licensing and compliance manager
--
Interested in helping us expand our reach?

* Follow us on Mastodon at <[link removed]> and PeerTube at <[link removed]>, showing your support for federated social networks.
* Get active on the LibrePlanet wiki: <[link removed]>.
* Share on your blog or [social network]([link removed]) that you support us, and why you do so.
* Subscribe to our RSS feeds: <[link removed]>.
* Join us as an associate member: <[link removed]>; and display your membership button (<[link removed]>) on your website.

Read our Privacy Policy: <[link removed]>.

Sent from the Free Software Foundation,

31 Milk Street
# 960789
Boston, Massachusetts 02196
United States


You can unsubscribe from this mailing list by visiting

[link removed].
To stop all email from the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design,
and the Free Software Supporter newsletter, visit

[link removed].