4 ms·

Wrong software: the tweeter claims it’s copied from the GPLed Gzip, not zlib. Probably GPLv2, given the release timeline. Man, if copyright wasn’t 85 years lon

Wrong software: the tweeter claims it’s copied from the GPLed Gzip, not zlib. Probably GPLv2, given the release timeline. Man, if copyright wasn’t 85 years long, Nintendo might already be off the hook.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 6y ago
> Wrong software: the tweeter claims it’s copied from the GPLed Gzip, not zlib. The tweeter's claim does not matter. If you download the version of gzip they're talking about and look at inflate.c, it clearly spells out that it's authored by Mark Adler free for reuse. The gzip project can not relicense the file, only any addenda they performed to the original might be GPL'd.
- clankyclanker 6y ago
  Are you certain about that? Wasn’t GPL-relicensing of BSD X-server code part of the original tensions between the GPL and BSD camps? I want to say that was in relation to Gnome, but it’s been a while since I’ve looked for it. Nintendo’s defense, of course, would be to say they received the file from a non-gzip source.
  - lights0123 6y ago
    you can license BSD-licensed files and changes to them as GPL, as BSD is compatible with the GPL as it contains no clause against adding additional restrictions. However, that doesn't magically remove the original license, so you can of course grab the original file and use it under the BSD license.
  - dfox 6y ago
    Assuming that you mean the incident that resulted in the X.org X11 distribution being actually usable for end users it was essentially the other way around. It was about XF86 relicencing originally MIT licensed code under GPL-incompatible license similar to 4-clause BSD.
    - clankyclanker 6y ago
      That sounds like what I was thinking of, I must’ve misremembered the issue. Do you have any sources on that history? All I can find with a quick search is blog posts asking whether GPL usage is declining.

4 ms·

Wrong software: the tweeter claims it’s copied from the GPLed Gzip, not zlib. Probably GPLv2, given the release timeline. Man, if copyright wasn’t 85 years lon

by clankyclanker 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 6y ago
> Wrong software: the tweeter claims it’s copied from the GPLed Gzip, not zlib. The tweeter's claim does not matter. If you download the version of gzip they're talking about and look at inflate.c, it clearly spells out that it's authored by Mark Adler free for reuse. The gzip project can not relicense the file, only any addenda they performed to the original might be GPL'd.
- clankyclanker 6y ago
  Are you certain about that? Wasn’t GPL-relicensing of BSD X-server code part of the original tensions between the GPL and BSD camps? I want to say that was in relation to Gnome, but it’s been a while since I’ve looked for it. Nintendo’s defense, of course, would be to say they received the file from a non-gzip source.
  - lights0123 6y ago
    you can license BSD-licensed files and changes to them as GPL, as BSD is compatible with the GPL as it contains no clause against adding additional restrictions. However, that doesn't magically remove the original license, so you can of course grab the original file and use it under the BSD license.
  - dfox 6y ago
    Assuming that you mean the incident that resulted in the X.org X11 distribution being actually usable for end users it was essentially the other way around. It was about XF86 relicencing originally MIT licensed code under GPL-incompatible license similar to 4-clause BSD.
    - clankyclanker 6y ago
      That sounds like what I was thinking of, I must’ve misremembered the issue. Do you have any sources on that history? All I can find with a quick search is blog posts asking whether GPL usage is declining.