Re: GPL and other licences

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    > Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
>    > BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
>    > licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
>
>    [...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
>    LGPL like clause that allows it.
>
> This is true.  The original work is still covered by the original
> license.  What happens is a dual licensing, the original code is still
> licensed under the BSD license, and the new code is licensed under the
> GPL.

Wrong.  You are spouting more and more nonsense.  If we are talking
about the old BSDL, the licenses are incompatible.  With the new one
(without advertising clause), relicensing under the GPL is within the
scope of the original license.  Whoever receives the software _under_
a different license has to heed the relicense.  That's what makes
BSD-licensed software popular with outfits like Microsoft in the first
place: they can relicense the BSD-licensed software under EULA.  And
_of_ _course_ this does not mean that the receiver of such software is
allowed to use the software under anything but EULA.

> Only person who can re-license something is the copyright holder.

Wrong.  The only person who can give _permission_ to sublicense is the
copyright holder.  In case of the GPL v2, the only sublicense allowed
without renogatiation is the GPL v2.  In the case of the new BSDL or
the MIT license, possible sublicenses include GPL and EULA.  The one
handing you the physical media with the software on it gets to decide
what license he picks among those that are options to him.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum