Date: 20 Dec 2001 18:55:19 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <ulu1uluvs8.1ul@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011220171739.J26326@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/Pine.LNX.4.43.0112181134500.21473-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011218110645.A2061@tisys.org> <200112182010.fBIKA9739621@prism.flugsvamp.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost> <20011219091631.Q377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <0en10ey5jo.10e@localhost.localdomain> <20011219215548.D76354@prism.flugsvamp.com> <lpellpwlhe.llp@localhost.localdomain> <20011220171739.J26326@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> writes:
> Suppose I write a piece of software, and release it under the BSD
> license. It gets committed to the FreeBSD kernel. Someone else
> tweaks it and slaps a GPL license on it. You would have all copies
> instetaneously tainted by the GPL.
This belies your claim to have understood me. You're scenario there
is not something that may legally occur. Let's call your work "A"
and the tweaker's work in a derivative of A, "B". You own A; nobody but
you has the right to slap a GPL license on it. The tweaker is allowed
by the BSDL to make a derivative of A. This is a work of authorship
which we'll call "C". It contains A and B. The tweaker is free to
distribte C because of the BSDL, but he may not slap a GPL on C, because
it is not all his to license. From 17 USC 103:
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work,..."
(Of course, when using sloppy language, we say that the tweaker is
licensing C, but in fact, he is only licensing B and you are licensing
A. If the tweaker uses the GPL on B, we commonly say that the GPL
covers C (and maybe the A within it), but his GPL only applies to B
since that is all he owns (read quote above again).)
Now this is an easy case since the tweaker may use a modified GPL and
combine his B with your A and distribute the whole with part A not under
the terms of the GPL. But if he did not own all of the GPL'd parts,
he'd be stuck, unless he could get you to allow A to be distributed
under the terms of the GPL (or more likely under both GPL and BSDL).
> Sorry, but you're forgetting one simple fact: as the Author, I maintain
> all Copyrights. So my original work by itself is (and cannot be) tainted
> by the GPL unless I reassign the copyright. This *IS* well tested
> international copyright law. (Berne Convention)
Sorry, but I'm not forgetting any of that; that is why the derivative
work may not be put under the GPL unless you agree to put your part
under the GPL. The fact that 99% of the world feels free to infringe
on the copyright of BSD-licensed works says as much about BSD licensors
as it does about the world's understanding of copyright law.
But if the derivation is done and it is distributed with your
cooperatation and you say things like "the kernel is under the GPL",
then don't be suprised if, someday, some fancy lawyer makes a convincing
case (in his client's mind, if not a court) that you've implied consent
to the GPL'ing of your part.
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?ulu1uluvs8.1ul>