Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The law can!
> >
> > The GPL is in conflict with the law and therefore the parts you have in
> > mind
> > are just void.
>
> Which law is the GPL in conflict with, and in which jurisdiction, and
> what is the extent of the conflict?
The GPL is in conflict with US Copyright law Section 17 Paragraph 106.
In Europe, the law on business conditions apply and allow the licensee to
chose his best interpretation in case of
> To the best of my knowledge, what you claim has not been tested in a
> court of law with jurisdiction, and is not a matter of law. Until that
> happens, it is an untested legal opinion and as we know, opinions can vary.
There is no need to test something so obvious in court.
A license is not allowed to redefine the definition of what a derivative work
is and the problem with the GPL only exists in case the GPL succeeds to redefine
the lawful definition of a drivative work.
> The kernel devs have their position, you have yours. In this case, the
> opinion of the kernel devs is the one that carries as they control what
> does and does not ship.
While I am quoting the papers from lawyers (Determann, Rosen, Gordon)
you are quoting laymen.
Note that Lothar Determan is professor of law at Freie Univerität Berlin _and_
the university of San Francisco.
>
> >
> > BTW: I am still waiting for a legally acceptable explanation on why the GPL
> > should be compatible to the BSD license. Note that the BSD license is very
> > liberal, but it definitely does not permit to relicense code that was
> > published
> > under the BSD license withour written permission of the Copyright holder.
>
> There is no requirement that the GPL should be compatible with the BSD
> license. The GPL only requires that derivative works comply with the
> terms of the GPL.
The GPL requires to relicense the whole work under the GPL and this is not
permitted for code under the BSD license.
> If BSD code is shipped with GPL code and the BSD code is the derivative
> work, the BSD license does not demand that the code be published.
> However, the GPL does so the entire codebase is published under the
> terms of the GPL. Thus the conditions of both licenses are satisfied,
> and no relicensing is involved.
If the Linux kernel uses the BSD code, it is the Linux kernel that has become
the derivative work.
Note that you cannot publishe the entire codebase under GPL as parts are under
BSD license already.
> > So is the problem just a social problem given the fact that Linux comes
> > with
> > BSD licensed parts?
>
> I don't follow your reasoning here. How does the BSD license affect CDDL
> code in this case?
It demonstrates that the Linux kernel people do not really honor the GPL and I
see no difference between adding code under BSD compared to code under CDDL.
Both licenses do not allow relicensing without written permission of the
Copyright owner.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
