Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:29:37 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009499377.cf4de8@mired.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <15397.9585.514476.882122@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <mi4rmivlud.rmi@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> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> <fxlmfxukw9.mfx@localhost.localdomain> <15394.56866.830152.580700@guru.mired.org> <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain> <15395.43708.816636.295489@guru.mired.org> <mi4rmivlud.rmi@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary W. Swearingen <swear@blarg.net> types: > "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009402429.602581@mired.org> 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. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15397.9585.514476.882122>