Date: 15 Dec 2001 01:24:18 -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: <c48zc496pp.zc4@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3C1A6E7F.3CF2E0EB@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> <c58zc5a68o.zc5@localhost.localdomain> <3C1A6E7F.3CF2E0EB@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > ... 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. > > The problem with this is that you are only licensed to use the > GPL'ed code if you meet the terms of the GPL, which means that > the code it is linked with is GPL'ed. But that statement doesn't say enough. The GPL requires the deriver to license the derivative under the GPL, and thus his own code under the GPL, but nothing in the GPL prevents him from also licensing his own code (that which is NOT a derivative of the GPL code) under any other license. (Some other licenses would be of no practical value (like a closed-source license), but the BSDL would allow broader use.) The non-derivative code could even be put into the public domain. Consider the opposite case of Linus putting a BSD-licensed driver into his GPL'd kernel. He doesn't even own the copyright of the driver and therefor certainly can't change the licensing of the driver, yet we know that the kernel as a whole (being a derivative of the driver and the old kernel) is under the GPL. There is no conflict. Both licenses permit sub-licensing, the difference being that BSDL allows stricter (but not less strict) sub-licensing, while the GPL allows only GPL sub-licensing. Nothing prevents BSDL code, or even public domain code, from also being part of a GPL derivative and being part of it doesn't remove the BSDL from the BSDL code or remove PD code from the PD. > We are not talking "mere aggregation" when we talk about linking, I knew that. I've not been even considering aggregation here, except maybe in my off-target anthology-book example. > They disagree with your conclusion? 8^) 8^) Again, I didn't understand, but one problem is that I don't have a conclusion and I'm fairly sure only a court (or some lawsuit-threatening licensees) will ever come up with a conclusion that should reduce our uncertainty significantly. 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?c48zc496pp.zc4>