Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: > | The FSF is wrong on "compatible". > > They're only right in one circumstance. Using whole slabs of BSDL code > standalone as part of the GPL project, i.e. no mixing of code, the GPL > forbids that (since you can't relicense other people's code).
Yes, this is actually where it's legal: to put an aggregate copyright on a set of code, rather than changing the license on an individual file or a portion thereof. This is because the license in that case is on the basis of a collection copyright, which is a different thing than a copyright on an individual work of authorship, or of a derivative work. > | No matter what license is on the code, relicensing it > | under a different license without the author's written > | permission is not legal. > > Relicensing isn't the same as incorporating into a larger work cf: Apple > OSX is not BSDL, but contains code that is. This is the situation under which > BSDL code is 'compatible' with the GPL (the license of the whole does not > breech any conditions of the license of the parts). Yes, a collection copyright. > If you were to get your hands on the OSX code, you could safely and legally > distribute the BSDL portions under the BSDL. Same with any GPL project using > BSDL code. Except in the NIS+ case, where the original license _was_ allegedly changed from BSDL to GPL. > I don't think the GPL actually permits this either, but, the FSF > are the ones who tell you what your interpretation of their license > is to be. Actually, not. It is the author who determines that... which is why the FSF requires you to execute an assignment of rights to contribute code to GCC and other FSF projects and have the code accepted, lest your interpretation of the GPL differ from theirs, and result in legal difficulties. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message