On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context, > anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about > within an acceptable level of error. > > I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning > of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in > advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it > becomes hard when you address the details. > > But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can > statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain > my freedom to BSD license my code. > > Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is > straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you > package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release > it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can > use code from your file under the revised BSD license. > > This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to > release the combination under the GPL.
This is not true. A file that is BSD/ISC licensed can NOT have its license changed without consent from the original author. You can have a bunch of GPL goo around it but that will NOT (I repeat NOT) change the license on the BSD/ISC licensed file. I can't believe you keep saying this. This is not legal and by repeating it people actually believe this. This is disingenuous at best. I personally am very interested when the GPL will finally hit the courts so that we can get a firm legal interpretation and we can stop this silly debate. My money is on the viral clause being ruled unenforcible or even unconstitutional.
