On 21/01/2008, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Sunday 20 January
2008 21:33:18 Dave Crossland wrote:>> The resulting work (as a whole) has to be
under the Affero GPL V3
The resulting work (as a whole) has to be under licenses compatiblewith the
Affero GPL V3. That means, _no more restrictive_ than it;since the X11 license
is less restrictive, they can be combined undermixed licenses.
> The new> improved gameover.c cannot be recombined back into the original
> work> without the original developer changing their license or without the>
> recipient granting them a BSD license on the new gameover.c .
This is incorrect :-) The Affero code can even be copied into theoriginal X.c,
as
perhttp://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html#x1-40002.2
> > With most "5" style licenses, such as X11 or BSD licenses, you can not> >
> > relicense (technically, "sublicense") the source code under "4" style> >
> > licenses,>> That is not what I said. I said:>> > > re-releasing your work
> > in a derivative licensed under 4) or 1).>> That's not the same as what you
> > said. (Take a BSD program, add in a call to> GNU readline without which the
> > program won't function & the derivative work> has to be licensed as a whole
> > as GPL - ie "a derivative licensed under 4)" )
If you write FreeBSD licensed code, and I add in a call to GNUreadline without
which the program won't function, the derivative workhas to be licensed as a
whole as GPL-or-less, ie "a derivativelicensed under 4) and 5)".
Your FreeBSD code remains under the license you specified, becausethat license
does not permit sublicensing. If I distributed thederivative work licensed as a
whole as GPL, I would be illegallysublicensing your code.
> > but you can combine sourcecode files with mixed licenses> > into a single
> > program.>> Absolutely, and you also have to remember that if a project that
> > was BSD> licensed only, if you add GPL'd portions in, those GPL'd
> > extensions and> modifications cannot be reincorporated back into the BSD
> > mainline (without> changing the license of the mainline or without a BSD
> > license being granted> back to (at minimum) the mainline) - as demonstrated
> > above.
Those GPL'd extensions and modifications can be reincorporated backinto the BSD
mainline (without changing the license of the mainline orwithout a BSD license
being granted back to (at minimum) the mainline)but "in a single source file it
is typically very difficult, and oftencompletely infeasible, to determine which
parts of such a file arecovered by permissive terms. If the goal is to make
additional codeavailable under permissive terms only, the method described in §
2.3should be used."
§ 2.3 =
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html#x1-50002.3
> So, whilst the code is open & free software, the improvements are denied> to
> the original developer (unless they change their license of their system> as
> a whole, or cease redistributing), in a /similar/ way that the code being>
> released as proprietary software denies the same author access to code.
The improvements are free software though, so no essential softwarefreedom is
trampled. Let's not get religious about licensing, eh? :-D
> At that point I'm bowing out of that discussion, since otherwise I'll be>
> breaking a new year's resolution :)
My apologies if I cause you to break it, but this is a sublte point ofGPL
licensing I only understood a few months ago.
-- Regards,Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
