GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review (WAS: License Committee Report for July 2007)
cowan at ccil.org
Wed Aug 1 02:12:18 UTC 2007
Wilson, Andrew scripsit:
> Perhaps a non-GPL example will help clarify. As is well known,
> Mac OS X contains great gobs of BSD-licensed code which Apple
> re-releases under their own proprietary license.
You mean the APSL? Not a proprietary license, and IMHO Apple's right to
hike off the BSD license and put the APSL on the FreeBSD-derived code
instead is pretty shaky.
It's true that Apple uses the BSD-granted right to release some of that
code as proprietary binary bits; hopefully they obey the BSD license
and carry the license text along as well.
> With BSD, anything that is not forbidden is allowed. You may apply your
> own additional terms and conditions (e.g. relicense). [...]
> Just as Apple may add their EULA on top of BSD, you or I or anyone else
> may add GPL on top of BSD-licensed code and distribute the result.
The GPL begins thus:
# 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
# a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
# under the terms of this General Public License.
"By the copyright holder". You aren't the copyright holder. You can
place such a notice, but I fail to see how it has any legal force at all.
The first thing you learn in a lawin' family John Cowan
is that there ain't no definite answers cowan at ccil.org
to anything. --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird
More information about the License-discuss