> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:09:32 -0700 (MST) > From: Dale Scott <dalesc...@shaw.ca> > Subject: Re: OT: problems with gpl-licensed software > > > Thinking about extending or dual-licensing a gpl-licensed software ? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/7/338 > > IANAL, but my understanding from researching the GPL is that if a piece > of software functions as an integrated part of some other software that ilicense under the GPL, then the software in question *can* be > considered to be a derived work of the other software - and under the > terms of the GPL must also be licensed by the GPL (even if the author has > copyright ownership and distributes their software separately, which are > the most common reasons I've seen given for why the GPL should not > apply).
nitpick -- if any GPL-licensed software is included in an executable, then the _entire_ app *must* be GPL-licensed -- this is a condition of the license of the GPLed software the latest version of the GPL attempts to impose GPL licensing on stand- alone apps that operate in an intimately connected fashion with a GPLed app -- on the basis that it is a derived work, as you mention. The 'derived work' arqument is questionable, but has not been challenged in court -- successfully or otherwise. An owner of rights in an independantly developed piece of a GPLed app, _can_ impose additional licensing requirements AS LONG AS those added requirements do not conflict with the GPL terms. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
