Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:26:06 +0100 From: Nicolas Rachinsky <list@rachinsky.de> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <20011221212606.GB17204@pc5.abc> In-Reply-To: <20011221150930.A78601@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <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> <4.3.2.7.2.20011221131016.00d3dcc0@localhost> <20011221150930.A78601@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:09:30PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:15:02PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > At 04:17 PM 12/20/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > > > >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) > > > > Jonathan: > > > > This is, alas, not quite true. Let's take the example of Linux syslogd. > > It was based on Berkeley syslogd, written by Eric Allman, and the man > > page credits him and other contributors. But the code has been thoroughly > > commmingled with GPLed additions and modifications, and there is nothing > > in the code to indicate which parts are GPLed and which are not. It is > > thus effectively GPLed. > > No, Brett, that's not what I said. I said that the *ORIGINAL* work > by *itself* is not and cannot be tainted by the GPL. Yes, I agree with > you here that the Linux syslogd (a derivative of Allman's original > work) is tainted (by some definition of taint) by the GPL. But the > original pre-GPL work, which probably still is available in an archive > somewhere, is not GPL'd. Just a question, there is an version of the BSD license which is incompatible with the GPL, which means I can't distribute a work with has both licenses. In the following I call this (incompatible) BSD license BSDL. If I have an program licensed with the BSDL, I'm not the author/copyright owner of. I have a source file which is GPL'd. If I combine this two for example by linking them together, I create a derivated work of both the source files. The GPL requires me to license the whole work under the GPL, which I can't do, so every distribution of the whole work in binary (and perhaps in source) is illegal. Is this correct? Are all the linux distributers violating copyright law? Nicolas 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?20011221212606.GB17204>