On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own
> copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable
> under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this
> combination, everything is ok for him.
Agreed. I was referring to downstream modifiers of the original code
(which is the context here) but should have made that clearer.
> By doing this, the author also implicitly gives a license that
> contains an exception to the GPL, which allows distributing the
> resulting binaries. The code actually is under a GPL-with-exception
> license.
Hmm. That's _possible_, but I'm not sure I'd want to rely on it. Can
you give an example of a situation in which an implicit exception has
been relied upon in this way in a free software context?
I don't think a court would imply additional terms where the express
terms - GPL - are clear and complete, just because an attempt to
exercise some of the rights under that licence would violate rights in
third-party software under a different licence. This is especially
true given the complexity of the implied term ("the source code for
this software includes code licensed under the CDDL, and such code is
distributed under the CDDL and not the GPL"). In English law terms,
I'm not sure this passes the "officious bystander", "oh, of course!"
test.[1]
And in any case, I'm not sure it would be particularly desirable if
that approach were followed. It would allow people to drive a coach
and horses through the GPL by just saying "implied exception!"
whenever a licensing conflict came up.
John
(TINLA)
[1] See http://www.glossaryofmanufacturing.com/o.html#Of for a good
explanation of this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
