On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:27:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > If people want to know why I consider the "GPL virus" a bad thing, there > > is the answer. If everything that links with the GPL _MUST BE_ 100% GPL, > > Everything that links with the GPL does not have to be GPL.
So I would think. RMS disagrees with you. > > then there are serious licensing problems with every single Linux > > distibution if no other reason than because people have in-discriminantly > > used BSDish code (sans advertising clause) within GPL code. > > >From the GPL: > > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > > Nothing in the modified BSD license conflicts with this. Unless "terms of this License" means "this license", as RMS has indicated. > Assume that I take a few hundred lines from an X server, a few hundred > lines from emacs, add a few thousand lines of my own code, and decide to > publish the resulting program. It is a derivative of both the X server and > emacs, and so I must have permission from both XFree and the FSF to > distribute it. The license attached to the X server tells me XFree's > conditions, while the GPL tells me the FSF's. Since neither requires > anything that the other forbids, I can go ahead and release my work under > the terms of the GPL as the FSF requires. If either license did require > anything forbidden by the other, I would have to negotiate a new license > with one of the two copyright owners. Note RMS says the X license is GPL compatible BECAUSE you can according to the terms of the X license literally tack the GPL on at the top. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- * james would be more impressed if netgod's magic powers could stop the splits in the first place... * netgod notes debian developers are notoriously hard to impress
pgpCtDKHU42sn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
