Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:58:15 -0700 From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: "Paul A. Hoadley" <paulh@logicsquad.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale? Message-ID: <c665c6o92w.5c6@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20040411013632.GC92584@grover.logicsquad.net> (Paul A. Hoadley's message of "Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:06:32 %2B0930") References: <20040410074515.GS85168@grover.logicsquad.net> <20040410084629.GB8301@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <20040410102653.GA92584@grover.logicsquad.net> <l3lll3ogjl.ll3@mail.comcast.net> <20040411013632.GC92584@grover.logicsquad.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Paul A. Hoadley" <paulh@logicsquad.net> writes: > Maybe some more specifics would be helpful. The application is a web > application. It may or may not end up open source, but it will be for > sale, and I don't want it to inherit a restrictive license. Even BSD licenses are restrictive, and even inheriting a GPL license is OK to almost everyone, as long as the license doesn't require using the GPL on the parts of the derivative that they own, which the GPL doesn't require for some kinds of derivatives. > So I don't think my application is a derivative work of any of these. As you define "application" and "derivative", maybe, but consider this: First, it could be said that your application (the thing you are distributing and licensing) is much more than just the code that you own. You're distributing a "compilation" which is covered by copyright law (like any other derivative?); you own copyrights in the compilation and in parts and others own copyrights in other parts. Second, those who might sue you (or their lawyers) and courts might have different definitions of the words. Third, the license might cause problems for you even if your application is not a derivative. (The GPL says "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program", possibly making a distinction between derivative and collective works, but covering both.) Fourth, copyright law uses the phrase "compilations and derivative works", seeming to imply that they are different, but treating them the same, in the most important ways. BTW, USC 17 has some definitions, but they leave much for lawyers to argue about. But it looks to me like all collective works are compilations and all compilations are derivative works. I'm sure some (especially those who've only read the GPL) would disagree. But that's just my understanding of things; you'll have to rely on the opinions of yourself and your lawyers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c665c6o92w.5c6>