From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Dec 21 13:33:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-31-201-166.mmcable.com [65.31.201.166]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 137D337B405 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 97214 invoked by uid 100); 21 Dec 2001 21:33:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15395.43708.816636.295489@guru.mired.org> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:33:48 -0600 To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop In-Reply-To: <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain> References: <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> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> <15394.56866.830152.580700@guru.mired.org> <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA v0.42/Python 2.1.1 (freebsd4) From: "Mike Meyer" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Gary W. Swearingen types: > "Mike Meyer" writes: > > > Ok, here's a more concrete scenario. B distributes S under BSDL, which > > is how A gets it. This also means that C can get a copy and > > redistribute it. In particular, combining C with software T, which is > > GPL'ed. From what you said earlier, all versions of S are now covered > > by the GPL, even though the original license was BSDL, not GPL. > Yes, but not because C made it happen by his action; it's because the > work S (and therefor all copies) must be put under the GPL by B before > C can do his thing legitimately, because the GPL requires the entire > work to be put under the GPL (unless it's a "mere aggregation" and > thus not a GPL'd work). C makes a work by his action; if I mentioned > some effect of it, I assumed the action was done legitimately. Slight change. Let's make S originally a BSDL source, but what A gets is a binary under their license, as allowed by the BSDL. Would you thereby claim that C's actions places a requirement on B to provide source to S to A if they want it? Or would B no longer be allowed to distribute a binary built from S without that requirement? http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message