Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: forced GPL in CGRAN? gr-ucla code in BBN repo not GPL?

[Thomas Schmid]

I remember trying to get the OK from UCLA that I could assign my code
to the FSF, but my email to the administration was never answered. I
will try again and see if I can change the license to GPL. Though we
might have to remove some of the sos code, which isn't really needed
(SOS is just an example embedded OS that uses 802.15.4 radios).

Thomas

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:
> [Discussion about gr-ucla's BSD license and GPLv3 compatibility.]
>
>  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>  http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
>
> I have looked at these.
>
> UCLA has placed code under a 3-clause BSD licenes.  As far as I
> understand, that's a "GPL compatible non-copyleft free software license"
> under the FSF taxonomy, and there's no problem linking that code with
> GPLv3 code.  See
>  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> and search for "modified BSD licenes".
>
>  Anything that includes any gr_*.h header directly or indirectly is
>  going to be a "work based on the earlier work" and must be licensed
>  under the GPL.
>
> This seems to be the FSF's interpretation; I'm not the least bit sure
> that's settled copyright law.  One can't use text in the GPL to decide
> what meets the derived work test under copyright law.  Including a
> header and calling functions does not in my view make the source file a
> derived work, but IANAL.
>
> If one distributes a combined work -- and none of Thomas, UCLA, or BBN
> have done so, to my knowledge -- then in order to have permission to
> redistribute the GR parts, the distributor has to be able to grant
> permission to copy the entire source under GPL.  The BSD license grants
> adequate permission to do that, which is why it's considered
> GPL-compatible, so there's no issue doing that.
>
> But, just because someone distributes the code under the GPL doesn't
> mean others can't go back to the original BSD-licensed code and copy it
> under those terms.
>
> Stepping way back from law, DARPA funded research and wanted the results
> to be broadly available, under a BSD license rather than GPL, in order
> to ease tech transfer (in ways the FSF objects to, by enabling
> proprietary derivative works).  BBN's GNU Radio work is assigned and
> hence GPL, because we tried to meet each community on its own terms.
> UCLA has a more permissive license, and I think that's fine too.  The
> important thing is that others in the community have the ability to
> modify, improve, and redistribute the code, and the BSD license
> certainly permits that.
>
> So I don't think there is actually any problem at all.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>
>



-- 
"Don't complain; Just work harder" - Randy Pausch

Thomas Schmid, Ph.D. Candidate
Networked & Embedded Systems Laboratory (NESL)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

http://gresci.blogspot.com/ - Science articles on green technology