Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:33:48 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009402429.602581@mired.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <15395.43708.816636.295489@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain> 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> <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary W. Swearingen <swear@blarg.net> types: > "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. Slight change. Let's make S originally a BSDL source, but what A gets is a binary under their license, as allowed by the BSDL. Would you thereby claim that C's actions places a requirement on B to provide source to S to A if they want it? Or would B no longer be allowed to distribute a binary built from S without that requirement? <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15395.43708.816636.295489>