Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:10:21 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <20011220231021.A52651@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <ulu1uluvs8.1ul@localhost.localdomain> 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> <ulu1uluvs8.1ul@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 06:55:19PM -0800, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > 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. Well, if I am to believe you here, then it means that you have just proved that there is no worry about the GPL at all, since in your own words, "he may not slap a GPL on C". "C" being the FreeBSD kernel of course, which, when you get down to it, is simply a collection of works "A", which is all BSD licensed. Sorry, you just argued yourself into a corner here. Either the someone can slap a GPL on the BSD code, in which this thread has relevancy, or they cannot, in which case the whole thing is moot. > But if the derivation is done and it is distributed with your > cooperatation and you say things like "the kernel is under the GPL", But we (me, greg, RMS, other posters) are _NOT_ saying that, *you* are. It has been our position from square one, that the BSD kernel is not under the GPL. Don't try and put your words in our camp. I believe I'll end this thread here, since you don't appear to be able to mount a cohesive argument, and any further logic would be a waste of my time. Feel free to have the last word. :-) -- Joanthan 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?20011220231021.A52651>