On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >> Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
> >> to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > That is false, only if software is distributed.
>
> There is nothing false in that sentence. Indeed the 'when distributed'
> part might be good to add, but that happens, the second you start using
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has to, if you want it to be a true statement.
> > Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as
> > long as you don't distribute software.
>
> Which thus means you can only per the license use the software yourself.
> Which is fine as nobody will use it then except you yourself and nobody
> will even know about the fact that you did patch it. The moment though
> that you do give it to somebody else you are forced to.
And it is a good thing, which has fostered sharing code.
> >> Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the
> >> rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to
> >> anybody else you are giving this too.
> >
> > Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or
> GPL
>
> Yes, you have the choice, but you still can't remove either of them.
> Everyone who gets a copy of the work also gets the same rights.
You are confusing the effects of the GNU GPL with other things.
Only the GNU GPL parts have to be distributed under its terms.
Parts licensed under the BSD *only* don't make anyone do so.
The copyright notice is not the license, it's merely informational, and no
longer required since 1989 by the Berne Convention.
http://www.washburn.edu/copyright/glossary/
> For that matter, the GPL license in there is pretty much useless as the
> BSD one allows full rights already.
Well, some developers think that the power to remove freedom to others is
too much a grant, and opted for the GNU GPL v2 license.
> But that was exactly the point why
> these things are dual-licensed, to make all the GPL folks happy, while
> they simply don't understand that the code is dual-licensed and that the
> one with the least restrictions will be used by the people who want to
> use it.
Well, the one with the least restrictions can be chosen by those who want
to use it.
You can do one of three things:
don't choose and just pass along
choose the first one
choose the second one
Which is what the copyright notice said.
> I simply slam BSD on everything that I want to make available so that
> people can use it however they want. GPL licensing has no advantages at
> all over BSD, it only has a disadvantage: that people can't use your
> code if they want to.
People can use my code if they want to. If they want to distribute it
around... there's a string attached: you can't make it proprietary off
my back.
> I have no problem with people not contributing back, as I receive enough
> patches for my code, because people know they get credited properly for
> their work.
>
> I do have a problem with some people who think that they can change
> licenses which are not theirs to change.
As I said, that was only done on the 5 files that were not dual licensed,
and in those files, I agree fully with you.
Rui
--
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
