From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 15 00:46:07 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065811BF for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:46:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975348FC08 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id qAF0kpYf003142; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:46:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:46:51 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201211150046.qAF0kpYf003142@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: dalescott@shaw.ca Subject: Re: OT: problems with gpl-licensed software In-Reply-To: <834869718.12231411.1352934572362.JavaMail.root@cds005.dcs.int.inet> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:46:07 -0000 > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:09:32 -0700 (MST) > From: Dale Scott > 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.