Date: 20 Dec 2001 14:54:53 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <lpellpwlhe.llp@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011219215548.D76354@prism.flugsvamp.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> writes:
> Well, I agree with the above 4 sentences, but not the prior argument.
> I imagine that this point is where you (and Brett, probably) lose most
> of your readers.
>
> The concept (to me anyway) is simple:
>
> 1. There exists a GPL encumbered source. Call this A.
> 2. I have some pure BSD kernel sources. Call this B.
> 3. Make a copy of the BSD code.
> cp -R /usr/src /usr/src2. Call this C.
> 3'. (optional) Move copy C far away (into another universe)
> 4. Add GPL code A to BSD code C.
>
> Now, by my logic, and my reading of the GPL, yes, the resulting
> product which contains 'A' and 'C' is now under the GPL, and so
> copy C automatically falls under the GPL too.
>
> BUT!
>
> Copy B is _NOT_ under the GPL.
>
> This is where we appear to differ. I reject the notion that because
> it is possible in some universe to combine BSD + GPL'd code, that it
> automatically forces all other copies of the BSD code to fall under
> the GPL.
Thank you for explaining carefully, as I requested.
Your logic that you referred to is, I think, OK. But your premise (?)
that it is copyies that are licensed is wrong. The GPL is a license of
copyrights. (The one of importance here is the exclusive right "to
prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work".) It's not a
license to use a copy of a work (like the M$ EULA is, among other
things). (Actually, if you legally own a copy of a GPL'd work, you may
use it for certain purposes (running, not deriving) without accepting or
even knowing of the license -- and it's waivers of liability! You can't
legally own a copy of a M$ EULA work; you only license the copy (and the
work) by clicking "accept", etc.)
When you combine copies you also combine the works by a kind of
instantaneous communication (lawyers > physicists). :-) This then
propagates instantaneously to other copies under the same concept.
I expect that you can see how this affects the situation, if you don't
disagree with what I've said about works and copies. Note that other
exclusive copyrights are (and there are more not important here):
"to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords"
"to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,
or by rental, lease, or lending"
Now, if you're wondering how a GPL licensor can license one copy to the
GNU herd and another copy to a closed source developer for big money (as
occasionally happens), that is because we allow each other to use sloppy
language to save time. In this case, the work is being licensed under
multiple licenses. Note that since the closed developer may also accept
the GPL simultaneously (unless his custom license prevents it), then he
may pick and choose terms to some extent.
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?lpellpwlhe.llp>