From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jan 18 10:55:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19108 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:55:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19103 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:55:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA00248; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:55:40 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990118114510.0475fa90@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:55:24 -0700 To: Jacques Vidrine From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Attempt to relicense BSD code under the GPL Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199901181743.LAA84007@spawn.nectar.com> References: <4.1.19990118095621.04517460@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118092136.0465ede0@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118092136.0465ede0@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118095621.04517460@mail.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:43 AM 1/18/99 -0600, Jacques Vidrine wrote: >On 18 January 1999 at 10:01, Brett Glass wrote: >> Nope, I'm not overreacting. The page states that the code >> is licensed ONLY under the GPL. > >I don't see that. The page you reference does not contain any >reference to ``GPL''. http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/oskit/ Use the links, Luke. ;-) Follow the link with the text "Licensing policy" midway down the page. It leads to the following: =================================================================== Copyright (c) 1994-1999 The University of Utah and the Flux Group. All rights reserved. The OSKit -- the Flux Operating System Toolkit. Developed by the University of Utah, Flux Research Group. http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/ The OSKit is free software -- also known as "open source" -- you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and found in the file `COPYING'. This license basically allows free use, modification, and redistribution, as long as the source to the OSKit and any code linked against it is made freely available. (The license in `COPYING' is authoritative, not this interpretation of it.) For credits and exceptions, see doc/licensing.tex. To explore alternate licensing terms, contact the University at csl-dist@cs.utah.edu or +1-801-585-3271. The OSKit is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with the OSKit; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place #330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA, or look at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html. =================================================================== There's no mention of the fact that it is per se illegal to relicense BSD code under the GPL. >What is ``the COMPILATION copyright''? I don't follow. It's a basic concept of copyright law. When you compile a collection of material, you own a copyright on the way the collection is compiled (the selection of elements and the way in which they're linked together) even if you don't own all of the component parts. If you wanted to use the "OSKit," including the "glue code" that connects the various elements, you'd have to have permission under the compilation copyright. Apparently, the University has unwisely chosen to license this copyright under the GPL. Again, this precludes commercial re-use -- a good example of how many developers stamp the GPL on their code without understanding the legalities or the implications. >The code developed at Univ. of Utah, the OSKit proper, if you will, >is under GPL (although note that other licensing terms are available). It should not be. This is contrary to the stated purpose of the project. How can one reduce the cost of OS R&D when one precludes businesses from creating commercial OSes based on the kit? >The code donated/borrowed from other projects, such as FreeBSD, are >still under the original copyright of the project (of course, since >that cannot legally be changed). That's not what that "License policy" says. This group is attempting to relicense BSD-licensed code under the GPL, both by stamping the GPL on it and by using it for the package as a whole. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message