Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:46:51 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: dalescott@shaw.ca Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OT: problems with gpl-licensed software Message-ID: <201211150046.qAF0kpYf003142@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <834869718.12231411.1352934572362.JavaMail.root@cds005.dcs.int.inet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:09:32 -0700 (MST) > From: Dale Scott <dalescott@shaw.ca> > Subject: Re: OT: problems with gpl-licensed software > > > Thinking about extending or dual-licensing a gpl-licensed software ? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/7/338 > > IANAL, but my understanding from researching the GPL is that if a piece > of software functions as an integrated part of some other software that ilicense under the GPL, then the software in question *can* be > considered to be a derived work of the other software - and under the > terms of the GPL must also be licensed by the GPL (even if the author has > copyright ownership and distributes their software separately, which are > the most common reasons I've seen given for why the GPL should not > apply). nitpick -- if any GPL-licensed software is included in an executable, then the _entire_ app *must* be GPL-licensed -- this is a condition of the license of the GPLed software the latest version of the GPL attempts to impose GPL licensing on stand- alone apps that operate in an intimately connected fashion with a GPLed app -- on the basis that it is a derived work, as you mention. The 'derived work' arqument is questionable, but has not been challenged in court -- successfully or otherwise. An owner of rights in an independantly developed piece of a GPLed app, _can_ impose additional licensing requirements AS LONG AS those added requirements do not conflict with the GPL terms.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201211150046.qAF0kpYf003142>