License Committee Report for July 2007
lists at opensourcelaw.biz
Wed Aug 1 03:53:46 UTC 2007
Michael Poole wrote:
> Brendan Scott writes:
>> John Cowan wrote:
>>> Brendan Scott scripsit:
>>>> "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
>>>> which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
>>>> whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
>>>> for other licensees extend to the entire whole, *and thus to
>>>> each and every part regardless of who wrote it.*"
>>> Permissions, yes. All the parts must offer the permissions of
>>> the GPLv2. But it is not required that all the parts likewise
>>> impose the restrictions of the GPLv2, only that the work as a
>>> whole do so.
>> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it only applies to
>> If you concede that the GPLv2 permissions apply to each part,
>> including the BSD part, aren't you also conceding that there is
>> relicensing of the BSD part?
> The BSD license grants all the permissions that GPLv2 does, and then
> some. (Another way to look at it is that the BSD license grants the
> same permissions, but does not make some of the restrictions, that
> the GPL does.) This is true whether the BSD-licensed bits are part
> of a GPLed whole or not; there is no relicensing involved in either
The wording each license uses is different, so this is not obvious to me (eg: the GPL refers to "copying, distribution and modification" as well as "running" the program. The BSD talks about use and redistribution and (implicitly) modification).
Can you explain why you think the BSD permissions are (at least) a superset of those in the GPL?
More information about the License-discuss