On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 12:26 Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote: > [...]
> > and FRR would be entirely within their rights to have pulled > > these out from the original app and turned them into a GPL library, > > *with* public entry points, and then ship that along with their code. > > No, you can't just take GPL of code mine, libify it and say it's OK for > it be used in proprietary code, without my agreement. > That's not what I said. - I *can* take your GPL code and turn it into a GPL library. That's what the GPL is for. I don't even need to ask you about it. - I *can* use this library in BSD code, and distribute both together as an aggregate under the terms of the GPL --- because the BSD license conditions are met by the GPL, so by distributing the whole under the terms of the GPL I meet both sets of licensing terms, and so everything is fine. - I *can't* use this library in closed source code, and distribute the result as an aggregate --- because there is no license which can meet the terms of the GPL *and* my closed source license. - I *can* use this this library in closed source code, and distribute the library and the closed source code *seperately* --- because they're not being distributed together it's not an aggregation, and both sets of licensing terms are being met independently. - I *can't *modify your library, and distribute the modified version as BSD, because the modifications are derived work, and therefore the result is only distributable under the terms of the GPL. What's under dispute here is whether FRR is an aggregation or a derivation. And, TBH, the examples you've shown me are all pretty underwhelming --- they're all standalone modules being used in a library context. Your argument's plausible, but you need better evidence. Mostly what you're saying now is too vague to be useful. You need actual files you can actually point it that we can look at --- and I'm afraid you're the one who's going to have to come up with this.
