Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:31:03 -0800 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <20000318133103.A18560@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003190139010.8919-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>; from Rahul Siddharthan on Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 02:16:52AM %2B0530 References: <200003181755.JAA18402@sharmas.dhs.org> <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003190139010.8919-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 02:16:52AM +0530, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > I have been in this situation before with one of my previous > > employers. When the Indian software firm A modifies GPL'ed code > > and ships it off to company B, GPL triggers. You can have private > > modifications to GPL, only if the code remains within a legal entity. > > It would trigger only if company B plans to redistribute. That > is, Company A must give it to Company B under the GPL; but if it > is for company B's private use, why would company B care about > the restrictions on distributing? The transfer of code from Company A to Company B is considered redistribution. Otherwise, one can defeat GPL by having agreements with Companies B1, B2, B3 etc, selling code for private use only. Thus when Company A transfers code to company B, it is required to give it to anyone who asks for it. That's the interpretation I heard from the lawyers. > > He would have been able to make money by selling add-ons to ghostscript. > > Because he licensed it under GPL, he could only sell mods to his code. > > Had he licensed it under BSD, he'd be able to sell mods to an enhanced > > version of ghostscript. > > He has the copyright, and can sell ghostscript under a different > license (with add-ons and all) anyway. But only he, the copyright > holder, could do that. (Though actually I think he didn't insist > on retaining all copyrights for modifications, but trusted to the > goodwill of the community.) I'm not sure that Linus Torvalds can change his mind now and release a version of Mobile Linux using a commercial license. He does not own the copyrights to everything - just to his code. My understanding of GPL is that Peter could not have sold a version of ghostscript containing a GPL'ed add-on without the permission of the author. This is why SCSL is not so well received in the open source circles - because it allows the copyright holder - Sun, to have special privileges. -Arun 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?20000318133103.A18560>