On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can > statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain > my freedom to BSD license my code. > > Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is > straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you > package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release > it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can > use code from your file under the revised BSD license. > > This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to > release the combination under the GPL.
This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license" but there is nothing in the revised BSD license allowing "relicensing" under the GPL. Hint: See Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In Leicester, a real estate developer employed an artist to create sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a building under construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the owner the exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the work, and a non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. The developer allowed a motion picture company to film the sculptural elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion picture company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the developer did not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course of the litigation, the developer was granted a "sub-license" by the building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive license could not be sub-licensed. ... 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366. regards, alexander.
