On 4/5/06, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Back to the original topic, > > > > 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). > > But what does that really mean. It sure is NOT that I can sit there and > retype a printed copy of the software and then release it BSD for sure!
That is copy-paste for practical purposes. > That's really the part I am having problem with. I am not a layers, I > don't want layers discussions, etc. In practical term, how can this be > done and what's the line here that makes it either BSD or GNU for stuff > you write that are inspired may be from GNU? Is code, meaning moving of > data, processing of data is it, but that you can still use the same data > structure because it make sense and reeds to be compatible? I don't know > and I am trying to find out. If you retype the same structure does it > then make it GNU? The idea is to see what it does and then do the same with your own ideas. For example, if you have a function that takes a string argument and reverse the characters in it under GPL. You take what it does (reverse character in a string) and re-implement it with your own code. You can keep the same interface to the function (meaning name and parameters) as long as you impelment the functionality yourself. As for data structures, I am not certain but I tend to agree with Ted meaning they are not copyrightable and you can copy them. (I know I did with some) > I don't know, what's the rules, how can it be done if even possible. > > Like many times we see people say inspired from GNU code, but it's BSD > code. What's the inspired is define at. How far does it goes? Inspired means you see a good idea and you do the same general idea without using the exact same lines of code. > That's my question. > > > 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. > > That I understand very well. But as stated below > > > 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). > > So what this really mean? It means that a file with only #include statements is hardly copyrightable and can be copied at will. Also file names are not copyrightable and you are not requiered to use new names. The copyright (and consequently the license) applies to the code and only the code. > Sorry guys, I also have some difficulty at time to understand the nuance > of the language, so I may look think at times, not my fault. I try > however. I need to understand this if only for myself, but I guess it > may be useful for someone else as well. > > Thanks and I am very sorry for the subject, I know this is a very > sensitive subject but I really don't want this to be a battle of merit > on the licenses, etc. Don't worry this topic has not even been approched yet, and I intend to keep it that way. > I am only interested on how a GNU project can become a BSD project and > the process and step in getting there, if that's even possible. In your case it is not really changing a GNU project to a BSD one but rather rewriting a GNU one under a BSD license. Correct me if i'm wrong. > Thanks > > Daniel > Arnaud -- "i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support for threads." - Ted Unangst
