Date: 24 Dec 2001 00:41:10 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: dwalton@acm.org Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does Linux violate the GPL? Message-ID: <llelllt3h5.lll@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011223153232.4b562a74.dwalton@acm.org> References: <20011223153232.4b562a74.dwalton@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Walton <dwalton@acm.org> writes: > A creates software S under BSDL. (Note that the BSDL does not grant > permission to alter the license, a right which is reserved for the author > by default, contrary to popular slashdot belief.) > B creates software T under GPL. (Assuming "use" means something like "derive from and publish".) > 1. A decides to include T into S, but does not change the license on S. > One of two possibilities exists: > a. A is in violation of the GPL by not relicensing S and may not > legally use T. True, and lawsuit threat is usually settled by GPLing of S. > b. Because A is the author of S, A might be considered to have > implicitly licensed S under GPL, regardless of A's intentions. > This example illustrates the dangers that FreeBSD flirts with and > (hopefully) avoids. Yup. > 2. B decides to include S into T, but does not arrange for A to release S > under GPL. This causes two violations: > a. B has violated the copyright of A by altering the license and may > not legally use S. Except that B hasn't really altered A's license. B is likely to even have accompanied the derivative with a copy of the BSDL. B has merely deceptively labeled the whole program as being under the GPL. I don't know what legal sanctions, if any, there are for that deception, especially when notice of the other copyright and BSDL is made somewhere in the documentation or code. (Note that the BSDL permits comingling of code without notice of the owner of specific code, which results in it being done to an extent that such designations of owners is not even possible. So even without the deception, the effect would be much the same, namely GPL infection. :-). > b. B has violated the GPL by not releasing ALL the code under GPL. In some sense, maybe, but he can't sue himself. > 3. C creates a new software U, which is a combination of S and T, but > does not arrange for A to release S under GPL. Once more, two violations: > a. C has violated the copyright of A by altering the license and may > not legally use S. See 2a. > b. C has violated the GPL by not releasing ALL the code under GPL. True. > I find it mildly entertaining that the GPL makes it so difficult to use > GPL software without violating GPL. This is freedom? And given that the > GPL requires an entire work to be published under GPL, even the parts from > other authors, how can any license be considered "GPL-compatible"? Good question. I suppose that most GPL'ers would say it's because the GPL means something different than what you think it means. Like that "on the terms of this License" only means that the added-in code's real license must permit redistribution of the source (or something). ??? > But I have to wonder... Linux (among many other projects) has borrowed > code from BSD. If, as I suspect, relicensing was not arranged, doesn't > that mean that Linux is in violation of both the authors' copyrights and > the GPL itself? Only of the GPL licensors' copyrights, it seems to me, and they'r not complaining. There are likely to be some violations of the BSDL's very- easy-to-satisfy terms, but the BSDL'ers aren't complaining either. 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?llelllt3h5.lll>