Licensing discussions get tedious really quickly...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:00:58AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > That absolutely, positively is not possible to do. It's not a goal of the
> > Subversion license to allow GPL code to be covered by it - that would not
> > be possible with any license other than the GPL. "Compatibility with the
> > GPL" entirely means software under a license that allows it to be combined
> > with other GPL software, the whole of which is distributed under the GPL.
>
> Not really. If this was true there wouldn't be any such thing as a
> GPL-compatible license. GPL 2b says:
>
> "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
> in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
> of this License."
>
> Note the important phrasing of "under the terms of this License" as
> opposed to "under this License." This permits the use of other licenses
> provided that they do not have terms that conflict with the GPL.
You're really splitting hairs here, and I think you've pointed out a
distinction without a difference. Sure, you could have a different
license, with all the same terms as the GPL, but was called "Ben's Public
License". Then, yes, you could combine GPL'd software with other
GPL-compatible code and release it under your BPL. But your BPL is just a
restating of the GPL; I suppose it could have other terms that don't
"conflict", but that would mean nothing but additional rights or neutral
statements like "sunsets are cool."
> I think your position is based on the presumption that any combination
> of your code and GPL code would be automatically relicensed under the
> GPL and that as long as you don't complain that there wouldn't be a
> problem.
That's essentially it, yes.
> If this is true that you won't complain if there is such a combination,
> why have the clause(s) in there at all that makes it GPL incompatible? Why
> not simply use something like a 3 clause BSD license.
Because we think asking people to give proper credit is important.
> Or is it that you simply want that clause in there for the situations
> where the code is relicensed under proprietary licenses? If this is a
> case a dual GPL, Apache 1.1 based license may serve everyones purposes,
> provided that we can get all future contributors to agree to
> dual-license their works.
Dual licenses encourage developers to fork, or to give you contributions
back "but only under the terms of the GPL". I don't wish to play games
like that, thanks. Furthermore it perpetuates the myth that the FSF is
the only entity allowed to interpret the GPL.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 1 22:59:12 2004