[email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote:
If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel
should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release
it under it's own license?
For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant
and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole
system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that
I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the
original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can
I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)?
I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful
developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because
without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am
looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I
would have to license things via the BSD license.
You cannot yourself change the license on code you do not hold the copyright
on. Period.
If you make changes and redistribute them then add your copyright notice
with license to the files. Do not remove the existing copyright notice(s)
and license(s).
You hold the copyright for stuff you wrote, but the original copyright
stays for the parts that did not come from you. "Parts" means any fraction
of a file from the whole file down to small amounts. You are allowed to
add restrictions (unless the existing license says you can't), but you are
not allowed to loosen the existing restrictions (unless the existing license
says you can). Also, it follows from the copyright that your license only
applies to the parts copyrighted by you. The existing licenses are similar
in that they apply only to their parts of the file. All licenses must be
followed when the file is treated (copied, used, etc) as a whole.
Make sure your license isn't incompatible with the license that applies
to other parts of the same file. If that happens then how it will turn out
in court is anyone's guess. The file may not be usable by the public, or
the incompatible license terms added by you may be struck down, or a judge
could cook up something else. It can't be predicted in advance so just
don't even go there.
"Giving credit where it is due" is an important social convention, and I'm
glad to see that you aren't planning on doing anything unethical like
breaking it. But copyright comes from the law and thus must be obeyed even
if you wanted to break purely social conventions.
Read up on copyright, and when you do pay close attention to the reliability
of the source. The issue has become very political in the past 15 years
or so. Don't be badly advised by someone who has their own agenda. Most
people, to varying degrees, have their own agenda.
Finally, if money is at stake (directly or indirectly) I strongly advise
talking to a copyright lawyer in particular. That's just general advice.
Taking advice from random people online is not a good idea if any money
is involved, but I'd give the same advice to my best friend. The general
rule applies here as it does elsewhere: "You get what you pay for."
Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued
a copyright on software?
Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license
comments included in the source mean that it's public domain?
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
