1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > The law can! |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > The GPL is in conflict with the law and therefore the parts you have in mind |
6 |
> > are just void. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Which law is the GPL in conflict with, and in which jurisdiction, and |
9 |
> what is the extent of the conflict? |
10 |
|
11 |
The GPL is in conflict with US Copyright law Section 17 Paragraph 106. |
12 |
In Europe, the law on business conditions apply and allow the licensee to |
13 |
chose his best interpretation in case of |
14 |
|
15 |
> To the best of my knowledge, what you claim has not been tested in a |
16 |
> court of law with jurisdiction, and is not a matter of law. Until that |
17 |
> happens, it is an untested legal opinion and as we know, opinions can vary. |
18 |
|
19 |
There is no need to test something so obvious in court. |
20 |
A license is not allowed to redefine the definition of what a derivative work |
21 |
is and the problem with the GPL only exists in case the GPL succeeds to redefine |
22 |
the lawful definition of a drivative work. |
23 |
|
24 |
> The kernel devs have their position, you have yours. In this case, the |
25 |
> opinion of the kernel devs is the one that carries as they control what |
26 |
> does and does not ship. |
27 |
|
28 |
While I am quoting the papers from lawyers (Determann, Rosen, Gordon) |
29 |
you are quoting laymen. |
30 |
|
31 |
Note that Lothar Determan is professor of law at Freie Univerität Berlin _and_ |
32 |
the university of San Francisco. |
33 |
|
34 |
> |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> > BTW: I am still waiting for a legally acceptable explanation on why the GPL |
37 |
> > should be compatible to the BSD license. Note that the BSD license is very |
38 |
> > liberal, but it definitely does not permit to relicense code that was published |
39 |
> > under the BSD license withour written permission of the Copyright holder. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> There is no requirement that the GPL should be compatible with the BSD |
42 |
> license. The GPL only requires that derivative works comply with the |
43 |
> terms of the GPL. |
44 |
|
45 |
The GPL requires to relicense the whole work under the GPL and this is not |
46 |
permitted for code under the BSD license. |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> If BSD code is shipped with GPL code and the BSD code is the derivative |
50 |
> work, the BSD license does not demand that the code be published. |
51 |
> However, the GPL does so the entire codebase is published under the |
52 |
> terms of the GPL. Thus the conditions of both licenses are satisfied, |
53 |
> and no relicensing is involved. |
54 |
|
55 |
If the Linux kernel uses the BSD code, it is the Linux kernel that has become |
56 |
the derivative work. |
57 |
|
58 |
Note that you cannot publishe the entire codebase under GPL as parts are under |
59 |
BSD license already. |
60 |
|
61 |
> > So is the problem just a social problem given the fact that Linux comes with |
62 |
> > BSD licensed parts? |
63 |
> |
64 |
> I don't follow your reasoning here. How does the BSD license affect CDDL |
65 |
> code in this case? |
66 |
|
67 |
It demonstrates that the Linux kernel people do not really honor the GPL and I |
68 |
see no difference between adding code under BSD compared to code under CDDL. |
69 |
Both licenses do not allow relicensing without written permission of the |
70 |
Copyright owner. |
71 |
|
72 |
Jörg |
73 |
|
74 |
-- |
75 |
EMail:joerg@××××××××××××××××××××××××.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin |
76 |
js@××××××××××××.de (uni) |
77 |
joerg.schilling@××××××××××××××××.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ |
78 |
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily |