For Approval: GPLv3

[Donovan Hawkins]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> How fascinating. But to begin with your problem is that GPLv3 itself
> talks about "license from the *original licensors*" (section 10) and
> even elaborates that "[s]ublicensing is not allowed".

The terms of the GPL apply to people who receive software under the GPL, 
not to people who release software under the GPL. I am bound only by the 
BSDL on the original program.

For example, AFAIK you can release a program under GPL in binary form only 
and never give out the source code, as long as you don't use other 
people's GPL code. It would be unusual, but legal.


Also, I was not debating whether the GPL would allow this particular 
scenario, but rather whether the BSDL raises any objections to it. If the 
four corners of the BSDL have no objection to my extreme example, then the 
BSDL also raises no objection to someone removing the BSDL "Additional 
Permission" when creating a derivative work released under GPL v3. That is 
the only point I was making.

If the example I gave is not valid for some other reason, so be it. AFAIK, 
the only thing copyright law says is that I have no power to enforce the 
more restrictive GPL v3 with respect to my distribution because I have no 
copyright when it is not a derivative work. But that's not the same as 
saying I cannot convey the rights granted by the GPL (which are a subset 
of the rights granted by BSDL) when I distribute...BSDL gave me that right 
and more.


> So tell us stupid once again...

Please let's remain polite. I never called anyone stupid, nor did I 
imply that I thought anyone was stupid. The fake license and dialog I used 
were only intended to be humorous, not condescending.


> ...how that conversion theory supposed to work and what
> made you become original licensor to Chris Travers' BSDL code.

I never said I was the original licensor to his code. This is an 
assumption you made based on your belief that I need to be the original 
licensor in order to do what I proposed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD                 "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer                     safer than biology, for while the
hawkins at cephira.com                   hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com                biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------