Date: 24 Dec 2001 15:57:45 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does Linux violate the GPL? Message-ID: <zcwuzcrx1i.uzc@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011224135933.01c3d710@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011224120539.01ce4170@localhost> <20011223153232.4b562a74.dwalton@acm.org> <20011223153232.4b562a74.dwalton@acm.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20011224120539.01ce4170@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011224135933.01c3d710@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> writes: > At 01:45 PM 12/24/2001, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > > >Looking at the BSDL, one sees no indication that the licensor cares > >about [keeping the license on the code]. That editorial insertion is broader than what I said, IIRC. Maybe I should have reversed it: The BSDL seems to not care about keeping the license off other code (because that may be legally ignored anyway). The BSDL has nothing to prevent ownership confusion, nor does law. > It's implicit in the statement that the license must follow the > source code. If you can't tell to which code the license applies, > the two have essentially been separated. The statement: "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice...". That doesn't imply that the code must be kept separately identified from others' code. The condition seems easily satisfied by the deriver adding his own copyright statement and offer of license to his work in the derivative. Also, the BSDL doesn't even say the license must follow the source code. It says the copyright notice, list of conditions, and liability declaimer must follow it. (I wonder why, because the license follows it whether or not a copy of it's text does.) > >The BSDL only requires that "Redistributions of source code must > >retain...". That's rather fuzzy, but I doubt that it requires explicit > >notification of each piece of original code. > > If it doesn't, it has no meaning. It's like saying, "This license > applies to some of the code in here, but we won't tell you WHICH > code." A great lot of good that does someone who's trying to use > it.... Sure it would have meaning. People would be put on notice that the work is owned, in part, by someone and how he is permitting you to use it. People would be warned that parts of it are offered "as-is" without warrantee and without liability. (Whether or not any of that would have much value in court.) That's enough meaning for most BSDL licensors. I agree that it CAN leave derivatives useless for further deriving, but most of the blame goes to the deriver who doesn't label things well. You can only blame the original BSDL'er for giving people more freedom than you seem to think he should. Beware GNU-think; it's insidious. 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?zcwuzcrx1i.uzc>