[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Dec 14 21:05:17 UTC 2006
Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):
> On 12/14/06, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> >Quoting John Cowan (cowan at ccil.org):
> >> David Dillard scripsit:
> >> There are dozens of reasons for incompatibilities between various
> >> OSI-certified licenses.
> >This, however, is immiscibility of two codebases under the _same_ licence.
> Is this new?
> Suppose that I have 2 GPLed programs, and one exercised their rights
> under section 8 to, say, deny distribution in the USA due to patent
> concerns. Wouldn't merging the two involve sublicensing the one that
> did not exercise their rights under section 8. If so, then that is
> prevented by section 4 of the GPL. Therefore it is at least possible
> that those two GPLed program might not be able to be merged.
I believe you've just described a patent obstacle, not a licensing one.
The derivative work would be lawful, hence not in violation of copyight
everywhere in the free world^W^W^W^Woutside the USA -- and also in the
USA after elimination or expiration of that patent threat.
(BTW, it is not clear to me that sublicensing occurs in your
hypothetical: GPLv2's grant is explicitly _directly_ from the copyright
holder to all lawful recipients who accept its terms.)
Cheers, A mosquito cried out in pain: The cause of his sorrow
Rick Moen "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" Was para-dichloro
rick at linuxmafia.com Diphenyltrichloroethane.
More information about the License-discuss