Re: GPL misappropriation

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
>
> http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
> (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
>
> "... Here are specific points I would make:
>
> 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to
> force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the
> downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the
> rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply
> wrap the BSDL in the GPL.

That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license.  I
mean, you can "wrap" it in Microsoft EULAs.

> 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).

The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.  Its conditions
comply with those of the BSDLed parts inside.

It is funny that you then quote an article that _differentiates_ between
various BSDL licenses according to their GPL compatibility.

Yes, it is known that, for example, BSDL with advertising clause is GPL
incompatible.  That was one motivator for them to drop this clause
eventually.

So sure: you can't take any BSDL style licensed stuff and integrate it
into work you distribute under the GPL.  It depends on the license
variant in question.  Some are compatible.  Some not.

-- 
David Kastrup