> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: > > > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD > > > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 > > > > > > So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU > > > GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files > > > alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use > > > anymore. > > > > Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a > > paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. > Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones?
You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. > If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. > It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: "alternatively" The word "alternatively" means "replace"? It might mean "select", but does it really mean "replace in-line"? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. > > The > > GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't > > trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. > > I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement > with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free > Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. > > If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. > The GNU GPL actually says you must license "under the same terms" as this > license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to > use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. > I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy > OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of > particularly important details to my line of professional work. > > Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non > reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime > launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? Isn't that rude?
