Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      17 Dec 2001 14:31:15 -0800
From:      swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen)
To:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Cc:        chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was  [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD))
Message-ID:  <k1y9k11nt8.9k1@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <3C1DEA69.93892A66@mindspring.com>
References:  <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011214175450.02da2a90@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011215232233.00e74cc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <20011217163427.A2885@monorchid.lemis.com> <qqheqq2i96.eqq@localhost.localdomain> <3C1DEA69.93892A66@mindspring.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:

> There are tons of other examples, but one is enough.  The license can
> not be changed without the consent of all the authors.

It CAN be changed by the copyright owners, regardless of the authors.
Based on little evidence, copyrights seem to be claimed by just a
few organizations (including U. of CA), but I wonder if many of these
claims are bogus and copyright is mostly in the hands of hundreds of
authors, making licensing change impractical. (Though legal
class-actions often treat individuals unfairly in favor of the group.)
 
> Technically, it is an aggregate license in that case.

You keep mentioning that license.  Care to explain?  I only got
"collective work" and "compilation" out of 17 USC.  And the OSKit
"aggregate license" that you mentioned (found here ?
http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/html/oskit-wwwch47.html )
is no license at all; they just say that various parts have various
licenses and ignore the issue of aggregating it in any manner.

> The way you would have to get around this is to insist on a relinking
> of the kernel by the user, in that case, rather than the use of modules,
> should the modules be derived from the original BSDL'ed code.  This
> would work, if we took special care to ensure the aggregate license
> only applied to the binaries on the distribution, and that the sources
> were distributed to comply with the aggregate license, bute were not,
> themselves subject to that license.

Maybe so, but you also have to convince the GPLer that you're not just
"working around" his intent to prevent such use of his code with non-GPL
code in the license you have accepted.  Or live with the (low?) risk.

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?k1y9k11nt8.9k1>