Date: 21 Dec 2001 13:26:53 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009350051.1df0ee@mired.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <15394.56866.830152.580700@guru.mired.org> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/Pine.LNX.4.43.0112181134500.21473-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011218110645.A2061@tisys.org> <200112182010.fBIKA9739621@prism.flugsvamp.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost> <20011219091631.Q377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <0en10ey5jo.10e@localhost.localdomain> <20011219215548.D76354@prism.flugsvamp.com> <lpellpwlhe.llp@localhost.localdomain> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> <fxlmfxukw9.mfx@localhost.localdomain> <15394.56866.830152.580700@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009350051.1df0ee@mired.org> writes: > Ok, here's a more concrete scenario. B distributes S under BSDL, which > is how A gets it. This also means that C can get a copy and > redistribute it. In particular, combining C with software T, which is > GPL'ed. From what you said earlier, all versions of S are now covered > by the GPL, even though the original license was BSDL, not GPL. Yes, but not because C made it happen by his action; it's because the work S (and therefor all copies) must be put under the GPL by B before C can do his thing legitimately, because the GPL requires the entire work to be put under the GPL (unless it's a "mere aggregation" and thus not a GPL'd work). C makes a work by his action; if I mentioned some effect of it, I assumed the action was done legitimately. Please don't misunderstand me here because of the weirdness of what a M$-friendly lawyer likes to call "general public licenses" like BSDL and GPL. With non-public licenses, B could distribute multiple copies of one work, but under license BC to C and under license BD to D, etc., and there's no problem of licenses infecting each other through the common work. But with public licenses, things get messy and if you offer the public a license to the work it's a done deal, no matter whether they get the work via a pristine copy or a copy buried in a copy of some compilation. With the BSDL, people are free to distribute copies of compilations, but they are NOT free to change the license. Otherwise, they could just rewrite it to have no condtions whatsoever. (Alternate assumption for your scenario: If C owns T, C may license the collective work under a license other than the GPL, which keeps the parts under the BSDL and GPL separately. He need not obey the GPL on his own work and the BSDL permits redistribution.) Now let's consider reality. What usually happens, I suspect, is that C just distributes the compilation, claiming that it is under the GPL. People see a BSDL'd section (if the notice has not been removed) and treat it like BSDL'd code, ignoring the GPL claim. All copies of the BSDL code, even those in the collective work, are still really under the BSDL. The BSDL owner sees no harm done (though some disagree) and decides he'd rather not hire a lawyer. He's allowed his code to become effectively dual-licensed (I say, having not thought about it much). Note that your scenario is not the FreeBSD kernel one. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18d718uuw2.718>