BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 10/15/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Eben says that the power comes from "historical community practice".
> > He has a PhD in History so he surely knows what he is talking about
> > when it comes to History. He also says that no way should we try to
> > disrupt that power because that would hurt proprietary division of the
> > global information technology industry.
> >
> > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.pdf
>
> A few points:
>
> 1)  I am not sure that Eben is the sole or even primary author of that work.
> 2)  The author does *not* say that you can distribute BSD works under
> any license and actually advises against it.

What the heck does "larger work licensed as a whole under the GPL" and
"covered as a whole by the GPL's copyleft" mean to you, Chris?
Consider:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123
(Professor Eben Moglen Replies)

-----
2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno

One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in
situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually
modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is
reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software?
I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with
my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR
themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package.

Eben:

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the
rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified.
The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on
static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your
code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code,
forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be
distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL.
-----

http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html

-----
Some common questions and answers in regards to licensing and patents

This FAQ is based on a a series of questions we asked the FSF in
regards to understanding how the GPL works and how patents affects the
GPL. These questions and answers are verified by the FSF lawyers,
which makes them the final interpretation on how the GPL and LGPL
interact with patents in our opinion. We paid the FSF to have them
provide us these answers. So these answers are verified correct by
people like FSF lawyer and law professor Eben Moglen.

Question: Can someone for example distribute

1. GStreamer, the LGPL library
2. Totem, a GPL playback application
3. The binary-only Sorenson decoder

together in one distribution/operating system ? If not, what needs to
be changed to make this possible ?

Answer: This would be a problem, because the GStreamer and Totem
licenses would forbid it. In order to link GStreamer to Totem, you
need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert GStreamer to GPL. ...
-----

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl3-final-rationale.pdf

-----
We have added these words to the aggregation clause to eliminate any
question that GPLv3 alters the scope of the copyleft as understood and
applied under GPLv2. In GPLv3, as in GPLv2, addition of modules or
other parts to a program results in a new program based on the old
program, with different functional characteristics created by the
merger of two expressions: the original program and the added parts.
Such added parts are "by their nature extensions of" the old program,
and therefore the entire new program which they and the old program
form must be licensed under the GPL. As subsection 5c states,
packaging of a work has no bearing on the scope of copyleft.
-----

regards,
alexander.

--
"To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I need look no further
than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the site as a
resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my story that 'PJ'
says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of them, and my
response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."

                                        -- http://tinyurl.com/2mn3jc