Date: 14 Dec 2001 12:36:55 -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: <c58zc5a68o.zc5@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3C19D716.3FC77047@mindspring.com> References: <3C186EA5.4EA87656@mindspring.com> <20011213093555.76629.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <1id71idej9.71i@localhost.localdomain> <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> <5ipu5i9u0w.u5i@localhost.localdomain> <3C19D716.3FC77047@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > > > Be careful there.... > > You seem to be claiming that an aggregation license of the GPL on the > works as a collection would satisfy the clause; however, at the end of > clause 2 of the GPL, it says: ... If I understood your argument there, that's a different issue which I wasn't addressing there. You seemed to be saying in the prior message that the combination of BSD-licensed code with GPL-licensed code in a derivative whould cause the BSD-licensed code to become contaminated and come under the GPL and thus the two are incompatible. I was just trying to say that BSD-licensed code is always BSD-licensed code, even if a derivative in which it appears is GPL-licensed (or even closed-source- licensed) and the two licenses are not incompatible. As for what a derivative is and what 17 USC means by "based upon" and whether distribution of a FreeBSD kernel capable of loading a GPL kernel module makes the kernel a derivative of the module, all are issues I'd rather leave for another day. > Forgive me if I don't want to be the test case for your legal theory, > particularly when it disagrees with those of the highly paid IBM > lawyers who did the 6 month due dilligence on the Whistle acquisition. I guess you're tiring of this and prefer to just make reference to higher authority, but that's better than nothing. I've saved the reference in case I ever find it important enough to research. Thanks. 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?c58zc5a68o.zc5>