From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Dec 22 16:29:44 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 DD2FE37B416 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:29:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15989 invoked by uid 100); 23 Dec 2001 00:29:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15397.9585.514476.882122@guru.mired.org> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:29:37 -0600 To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop In-Reply-To: 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> <15395.43708.816636.295489@guru.mired.org> 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: > > 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? > This looks very interesting. New stuff. But I need more info before > spending more time on it. What is "their license" (of S to A)? Is it a > standard BSDL or a private, two-party thing? I infer that S has been > licensed to the public under BSDL, but not distributed. Did you mean > that? Actually, this is the situation that people are actually worried about. S is BSDL licensed and distributed to the public as such. B takes S, and builds a commercial product based on it. They sell it to A as a binary with a standard commercial software license (i.e. - we own it, you have a license to use it, and we guarantee the media is readable and nothing more). Now C takes S, "combines" it with T which is covered by the GPL and distributes the results under the GPL. Back to the questions: Is B now required to provide source to their commercial product upon demand from A? Or are they simply no longer allowed to distribute said product other than under the terms of the GPL. 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