Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 03 Aug 2005 13:44:55 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC > >> test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. > > > > That's really interesting. [...] > > Derivative works have separate copyrights, but distributing an inseparable > derivative or collective work, such as a program in object form requires > complying with the copyright/license provisions of the original material.
I think you and I are reading "subject to BSD" differently. If you read Alexander's statement as "Authors of derivative works of BSD'd code must comply with the BSD license" then his statement is true. In the context of the question, he seemed to be saying "Derivative works are automatically licensed under the terms of the BSD license." That's not true. Only the original code is, and the author of the derivative work is under no obligation to identify what is original code and what isn't. You need to find the original code to know that. So basically the presence of the BSD license in a derivative work doesn't give you anything if there's an additional non-libre license. Excepting of course a hint that there's a libre alternative out there. However, if you see the GPL in a derivative work, you know you have the right to copy/adapt the code. For the author of the derivative to lawfully incorporate GPLed code, he must license the derivative under the same terms. If he licenses it under the same terms, you have the right to copy/adapt under the same terms. If he does not license it under the same terms, then he has no copyright protection; the only copyright in force is for the original GPLed code. Copy/adapt all you want. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
