5 ms·

The GPL restricts all non-GPL open source developers by stopping them from changing the license (except to a later version). The converse is hardly true since

The GPL restricts all non-GPL open source developers by stopping them from changing the license (except to a later version). The converse is hardly true since almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. Since this erupted into a fireball, here is a link explaining how code licensed under a permissive license can be included in a project that accepts GPL contributions: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-c...

icebraining 13y ago
The GPL restricts all non-GPL open source developers. Nope, only those that want to distribute their changes of GPL licensed projects. You're free to do whatever you want and keep the changes to yourself as long as you never distribute outside your machines or your organization (this allows closed in-house development).
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Look, you're restricted from shooting me with a gun, that doesn't mean you want to shoot me with a gun.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    I'm sorry, I can't understand your analogy.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      I'm sorry I was hasty. I said that the GPL restricts all developers from relicensing the code as BSD, I thought that it was obvious that this meant only the ones that want to. So we agree about that.
jmillikin 13y ago
First, developers are not users. Second, changing the license is a permission granted only to the copyright owner. Otherwise I could take BSD-licensed code, relicense it to WTFPL, and then include it in my code without any credit to the original author. Most licenses do not permit any sort of modification or version upgrade. The standard GPL boilerplate is extremely unusual for giving third parties a range of permitted versions. > almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. This is absolutely wrong. You do not have the right to change the license of someone else's code.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Okay, so changing a license to GPL does not violate the conditions of the BSD. You just have to maintain the little notice and the copyright. If you want you can call it GPL+BSD but it's obviously identical to GPL. Basically, you can convert the same code from BSD to LGPL to GPL to AGPL, but you cannot go in the other direction.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Okay, so changing a license to GPL does not violate the conditions of the BSD. You just have to maintain the little notice and the copyright. Not requiring this downstream violates the BSDL, but requiring it downstream, violates the GPL, at least in GPLv2, which does not itself require it, and prohibits additional terms to its own. I think the GPLv3's allowance of additional terms is broad enough to actually make some of the licenses that the FSF promoted as GPL compatible under GPLv2 but which were clearly not on a reasonable reading of the terms of the licenses compatible with the GPLv3.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Is the discussion here totally bogus? I can only see the first answer. http://www.quora.com/Can-you-convert-code-under-a-simplified-BSD-license-to-a-GPL-license http://www.quora.com/Can-you-convert-code-under-a-simplified...
  - jmillikin 13y ago
protomyth 13y ago
"The converse is hardly true since most non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL." Which non-GPL open source licenses allow relicensing of the code? I've heard this claimed about the BSD code in a GPL project, but I was unaware the license permits that code to be relicensed as GPL.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Obviously if you can include BSD code in a GPL project, you can include all of it. There is no "50% limit" on contributed code, for instance. And the target GPL project can have zero lines of code. The reason you can do this is because the GPL has more restrictions that do no conflict with the BSD restrictions, and it doesn't violate the BSD license to slap the GPL on top of it. Think about it: if you can release BSD code as closed source software, how is that okay but relicensing as GPL is not?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    You don't relicense the BSD code (that's forbidden), you can just not distribute its source.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      What I meant was that you can stick an EULA on top of BSD binaries. The conditions of the GPL are not incompatible with the BSD conditions, and GPL + BSD = GPL, because it's a superset of restrictions.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    > Think about it: if you can release BSD code as closed source software, how is that okay but relicensing as GPL is not? You are confusing source with binary on the close source side. The source is BSD and cannot be relicensed without the copyright holders permission. The closed source project has BSD-licensed source code that has no restrictions on distribution of the binary including adding a EULA. The GPL project that has included BSD code cannot relicense the code to GPL without permission of the copyright holders. The BSD gives you no permission to relicense.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The converse is hardly true since almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. While the FSF has actively promoted this view, for many actual open source licenses for which they promote the view, it requires a rather creative (at best) reading of one or both of the two licenses involved to support this claim.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but I will agree with them that it's obviously true for MIT/BSD which is a significant amount of code.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    the FSF was involved in a counter example: http://lwn.net/Articles/247806/ http://lwn.net/Articles/247806/
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      I'm sorry I don't really know what I'm looking at here. It looks like GPL + BSD = GPL in MODULE_LICENSE. Am I missing something?
      - protomyth 13y ago
        The BSD code is still BSD, your mods are GPL.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        But the project is GPL. I can't sell a commercial binary without the source.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  > While the FSF has actively promoted this view Could you cite any cases where the FSF has claimed it's legal to change the license on other people's code?

icebraining 13y ago

The GPL restricts all non-GPL open source developers. Nope, only those that want to distribute their changes of GPL licensed projects. You're free to do whatever you want and keep the changes to yourself as long as you never distribute outside your machines or your organization (this allows closed in-house development).

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Look, you're restricted from shooting me with a gun, that doesn't mean you want to shoot me with a gun.
- icebraining 13y ago
  I'm sorry, I can't understand your analogy.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    I'm sorry I was hasty. I said that the GPL restricts all developers from relicensing the code as BSD, I thought that it was obvious that this meant only the ones that want to. So we agree about that.

jmillikin 13y ago

First, developers are not users. Second, changing the license is a permission granted only to the copyright owner. Otherwise I could take BSD-licensed code, relicense it to WTFPL, and then include it in my code without any credit to the original author. Most licenses do not permit any sort of modification or version upgrade. The standard GPL boilerplate is extremely unusual for giving third parties a range of permitted versions. > almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. This is absolutely wrong. You do not have the right to change the license of someone else's code.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Okay, so changing a license to GPL does not violate the conditions of the BSD. You just have to maintain the little notice and the copyright. If you want you can call it GPL+BSD but it's obviously identical to GPL. Basically, you can convert the same code from BSD to LGPL to GPL to AGPL, but you cannot go in the other direction.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Okay, so changing a license to GPL does not violate the conditions of the BSD. You just have to maintain the little notice and the copyright. Not requiring this downstream violates the BSDL, but requiring it downstream, violates the GPL, at least in GPLv2, which does not itself require it, and prohibits additional terms to its own. I think the GPLv3's allowance of additional terms is broad enough to actually make some of the licenses that the FSF promoted as GPL compatible under GPLv2 but which were clearly not on a reasonable reading of the terms of the licenses compatible with the GPLv3.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Is the discussion here totally bogus? I can only see the first answer. http://www.quora.com/Can-you-convert-code-under-a-simplified-BSD-license-to-a-GPL-license http://www.quora.com/Can-you-convert-code-under-a-simplified...
- jmillikin 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago

"The converse is hardly true since most non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL." Which non-GPL open source licenses allow relicensing of the code? I've heard this claimed about the BSD code in a GPL project, but I was unaware the license permits that code to be relicensed as GPL.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Obviously if you can include BSD code in a GPL project, you can include all of it. There is no "50% limit" on contributed code, for instance. And the target GPL project can have zero lines of code. The reason you can do this is because the GPL has more restrictions that do no conflict with the BSD restrictions, and it doesn't violate the BSD license to slap the GPL on top of it. Think about it: if you can release BSD code as closed source software, how is that okay but relicensing as GPL is not?
- icebraining 13y ago
  You don't relicense the BSD code (that's forbidden), you can just not distribute its source.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    What I meant was that you can stick an EULA on top of BSD binaries. The conditions of the GPL are not incompatible with the BSD conditions, and GPL + BSD = GPL, because it's a superset of restrictions.
- protomyth 13y ago
  > Think about it: if you can release BSD code as closed source software, how is that okay but relicensing as GPL is not? You are confusing source with binary on the close source side. The source is BSD and cannot be relicensed without the copyright holders permission. The closed source project has BSD-licensed source code that has no restrictions on distribution of the binary including adding a EULA. The GPL project that has included BSD code cannot relicense the code to GPL without permission of the copyright holders. The BSD gives you no permission to relicense.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The converse is hardly true since almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. While the FSF has actively promoted this view, for many actual open source licenses for which they promote the view, it requires a rather creative (at best) reading of one or both of the two licenses involved to support this claim.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but I will agree with them that it's obviously true for MIT/BSD which is a significant amount of code.
- protomyth 13y ago
  the FSF was involved in a counter example: http://lwn.net/Articles/247806/ http://lwn.net/Articles/247806/
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    I'm sorry I don't really know what I'm looking at here. It looks like GPL + BSD = GPL in MODULE_LICENSE. Am I missing something?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      The BSD code is still BSD, your mods are GPL.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        But the project is GPL. I can't sell a commercial binary without the source.
jmillikin 13y ago
> While the FSF has actively promoted this view Could you cite any cases where the FSF has claimed it's legal to change the license on other people's code?