[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

From: Steve
Subject: Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:53:48 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you're the copyright owner in original works).

Are you saying that if one creates a derived work from BSD-licensed software, they can apply any additional licensing terms they wish to the compiled binary output... but those terms would not apply to the source code itself? I must say, that's an extremely BIZARRE distinction to wrap my head around!

Eh, as long as he didn't modify any BSD'd code, all his works are GPL'd and they are separate (literary) works from BSD'd (literary) works from "A". And a combination (compilation) of all those works is another non-derivative (under copyright law, not metaphysically) work and it is subject neither to GPL nor BSD.

You've lost me on this point as well. Are you trying to say that incorporation of another project's code into your own project does not constitute a "derived work" so long as you don't modify the code you've incorporated? Why is it then that if I build an application on MS-Windows using the Cygwin port of GCC, even though I haven't altered a single line of GPL'ed code, I am still forced to license my work under the GPL... because Cygwin dynamically links my code to a GPL'ed DLL.

I understand that "compilations" are not subject to the GPL or BSD (i.e. I could create a proprietary IDE by packaging a BSD'ed text editor and the GCC compiler). However, it's always been my understand that LITERALLY embedding someone else's code in your own software (including static or dynamic linking) subjects you to the GPL. That's the entire purpose behind the LGPL, isn't it?

I suppose that my understanding of the BSD license, in layman's terms, consisted of the following conditions:

1) Do whatever you want from this code, including modifying it and/or using it your own projects. Just don't try to misrepresent yourself as the author of my original project. Likewise, don't use the name of my project or myself to imply that I endorse anything you use it for.

3) Don't sue me if anything goes wrong.

If the BSD license does NOT translate into these conditions, can someone please tell me of any open-source licenses that do so? These are the wishes that I had in mind with past projects I licensed under the BSD.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]