Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:23:56 GMT
From:      Wes Peters <wes@dobox.com>
To:        j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>
Cc:        Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, =?US-ASCII?Q?Dirk?= Myers <dirkm@teleport.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning?
Message-ID:  <20010703.12235600@star.dobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010703172216.F39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
References:  <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702180222.A2667@hades.hell.gr> <20010702161055.A18543@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702172448.I4896@lpt.ens.fr> <3B41F0E4.B55E6937@softweyr.com> <20010703172216.F39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> wrote:


> | Yes, the copyright holder by definition holds the right to specify h=
ow
> | copies can be made an used.  That's what "copy" "right" means.
> |
> | A complication for open source projects: if you have accepted=20
contributions
> | of code (bug fixes, new features, etc) from others, and have not=20
specified
> | that all contributions become your property, you may not be able to =

issue
> | the code under a new license without getting the permission of all o=
f=20
the
> | contributors.  This is why the FSF asks for copyright assignment for=
=20
the GNU
> | tools; it allows them to control (prevent) the issuance of the code =

under
> | other licenses.  It's a great idea if you can get your contributors =
to=20
do
> | it.

> Tell me if I have this right:

> BSD-licensed code may be used for anything, but requires the permissio=
n=20
of
> the copyright owner to change the licensing terms.

No.  The BSD license allows distribution under any terms, including more=

restrictive license, as long as the terms in the BSD license (give=20
credit,
retain copyright message) are adhered too.  For instance, Microsoft is=20
allowed to include BIND in Windows 2000.

> GPL-licensed code is subject to GPL terms as long as the copyright own=
er
> keeps it under that license.  They may change this at any time.

The copyright holder can re-issue the code under another license, becaus=
e
he/she/they hold the "right" to "copy."  He/she/they cannot "take back"
the code already distributed under the GPL (or BSD license).

> Does this mean the existing code does or does NOT continue to be under=
=20
the
> terms of the original license before it was changed?

You can only change the license terms if all parties agree.  You seem to=

be completely and utterly misunderstanding the entire conversation here.=

If I develop a program called "foo" and release it under the GPL, that
version of "foo" is available under the GPL forever.  I can't take it=20
back
because the act of releasing it under the GPL constituted a contract=20
between
myself and anyone who obtained it.  Under the GPL, others who downloaded=
=20
it
may share it with anyone they wish, under the terms of the GPL.

I want to separately sell my "foo" program to Microsoft under a differen=
t
license, I can do so.  Say, for instance, I allow them to make=20
binary-only
distributions.  These are two separate contracts, they are separate=20
issues
under the law.

Now, say Rahul sends me some patches that fix a problem in the GPL=20
version
of "foo".  Do I have the right to incorporate those patches into the=20
version
I sell to Microsoft?  Not without Rahul's permission; he has a=20
"reasonable
expectation" that his patches are convered under the same GPL license as=

the code he worked on.  If I insist that all contributors to "foo" assig=
n
copyright for their contributions to me, then I do have the right to sel=
l
(or give) those changes to Microsoft.

If I issue "foo" under the BSD license, this issue is a moot point,=20
because
Rahul has a resaonable expectation his patches will be placed under the =

BSD
license, which would allow me, Microsoft, or anyone else to adopt them=20
and
use them in a binary-only distribution.

Does this help?

	-- Wes

(please forgive any formatting bogons, I'm trying out a new mailer.)


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010703.12235600>