On 4/5/06, Andrew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html > > Scroll down to the section 'Permissions - the flip side' and consider the > consequences of the statements in paragraph 4. > > This section is probably the biggest one that supports my view that GPL > cannot be recinded and after initiation and that all GPL code should be > carefully considered with regard to future use in GPL environments even by > the original author.
This section specifies that someone elsemay alter the copyright notices on files but that won't change who owns the copyright. It is the same with the license, someone else may change the written licensing terms but the original license still applies. However according to international copyright law, the author (or more specifically the copyright holder) of any work may change the distribution terms at his whim. In the case of the GPL, this means the author of GPL program X may decide to remove the source from the internet and sell it binary-only for 5K$. The only thing the GPL will do in this case is that people who obtained the source before it was pulled can continue to use and distribute it under the GPL as the author cannot revoke this license from them. No license can restrict the freedom of the copyright holder to do as he please with his work. However, with most GNU/GPL projects, there are hundreds or thousands of contributors and each one of them would need to agree to a license change to change the license of the whole project. That is why most big projects can't change their liccense. Back to the original topic, If the project you are talking about is yours (meaning you wrote it), ga ahead, change the license, you can. If not, you must ask each person who has the copyright to a part of the project if they agree to change the license. If what you are talking about is rather if you can replace some GPL file by an equivalent one but BSD licensed file, the answer is yes (as long as you don't copy-paste). The only caveat is that as long as there is even ONE GPL file in the project, the project has to be redistributed under the GPL as a whole. As for your second question, a file that is comprised of only an '#include "shit.h"' satement should be easy enough to replace (see Ted's suggestion) and you don't have to change the name of the file (at least with the GPL). > > I am open to having that view changed if you have a more definitive source > of reference, however, it may well be the case that some of the flexibility > that may be present in under one regional boundary isn't present in another > region. To this end many licenses state that the licensing terms are in > accordance with 'California state law..' or whatever, by accepting the terms > you are therefore reducing ambiguity on the use of the license. > > -Andy > [snip] Arnaud -- "i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support for threads." - Ted Unangst
