Date: 10 Apr 2002 14:06:12 -0700 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Incompatibility of the GPL (was: Use/Utilize) Message-ID: <crbscrxnzv.scr_-_@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3CB424E4.629016E0@mindspring.com> References: <3CB2125B.8F11C442@mindspring.com> <200204090020.g390KTPL059689@grimreaper.grondar.org> <3CB2733E.F98DD29B@mindspring.com> <20020409132012.F48437@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB3737A.1551931@mindspring.com> <20020410043451.GA1013@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB3DF33.5B677641@mindspring.com> <20020410073309.GA279@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB41997.214F408C@mindspring.com> <20020410130629.A16154@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB424E4.629016E0@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> > But the people who should be worried are the people who are writing
> > code mixing the two licences; they should read those licences first,
> > and then there will be no doubt about the meaning.
>
> Yes, no doubt: it is not possible to comply with both licenses
> simultaneously because of section 6 of the GPL, which requires
> that you perform an act for which the right has not been granted
> (or assigned by license) to you by the copyright holder: relicensing
> the code under the GPL.
No, there's always plenty of doubt about licenses; even the BSDL and
certainly the GPL and this issue of compatibility.
I'll grant you that incompatibility can easily be read into these
licenses, but as much as I dislike the GPL, I also want to believe that
the BSDL is compatible with any use which doesn't violate the few
explicit terms of the BSDL. Of course, if a license said "this can't
be used with BSDL'd software", I guess I'd have to admit defeat.
I can't get around the idea that similar reasoning would make illegal
most use of BSDL software under licenses at least as restrictive as the
GPL. I doubt if there is a single license on binary-only code which is
derived in part from BSDL code which doesn't claim to be a license on
the derivative and that most have terms something like the GPL's
"distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License".
As for actual support for their compatibility, I claim that the GPL is
overreaching in it's claim to be a license on the whole of the
derivative (more below) and people see no need to heed the claim,
especially since GPL licensors have apparently not claimed a desire to
enforce it. (And some have claimed a desire to not enforce it.)
The part of the GPL that is supposed to cause incompatibility does not
cause it because it is not an effective, enforcible part of the license.
It might as well not be there (except for the problems it causes). In
any case, the BSDL is all the license needed to use the BSDL code in a
GPL'd or other restrictively-licensed derivative as long as the BSDL's
terms are honored, which is easily done, even in a GPL'd derivative.
Such overreaching on the part of the GPL-using deriver is something the
deriver needs to worry about, I suppose, but he certainly needn't worry
any more about violationg his own GPL than he would if he was the sole
licensor. And because the BSDL licensor has already licensed his work
in the derivative (which shall be forever under the BSDL, regardless of
the other owner's license on his work in the derivative), no relicense
or sublicense is necessary.
From 17USC103:
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material.
So the license "on the derivative" may extend only to "the material
contributed by the author of such work" and does not cover the
"preexisting material employed in the work" which is still under BSDL
and for which no relicense or sublicense is needed.
Maybe that explains some author's preference for saying "license in the
work" instead of "license on the work".
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?crbscrxnzv.scr_-_>