5 ms·

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 G

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.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I'm repeating myself now, but I probably should have dug this up much earlier. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-c...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    2.1 disproves your point. The BSD code needs to remain BSD, your additional code can be licensed how you want.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Did you read 2.2?
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Yep, the BSD code is still BSD, your mods are GPL.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So what this means is that the license for the entire project is now effectively GPL. You cannot ship a binary without the source code. If you work on the codebase long enough such that you change every line, it will now be 100% GPL. Basically, it behaves exactly like a GPL project, along with all the restrictions, because the GPL modifications are mixed in with the BSD code.
        protomyth 13y ago
        No, its not exact - I can still extract the BSD code out of the project and use it without the GPL restrictions. You didn't relicense the BSD code, you just included some code that has its own license. Relicense has a very specific meaning.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It would be legal to take BSD code and add an additional clause that said, "Not for military use." It's the same idea. You've changed the license by adding restrictions. The old version is under the old license. It's the same if you convert public domain code to the GPL.

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.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I'm repeating myself now, but I probably should have dug this up much earlier. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-c...
- protomyth 13y ago
  2.1 disproves your point. The BSD code needs to remain BSD, your additional code can be licensed how you want.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Did you read 2.2?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Yep, the BSD code is still BSD, your mods are GPL.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So what this means is that the license for the entire project is now effectively GPL. You cannot ship a binary without the source code. If you work on the codebase long enough such that you change every line, it will now be 100% GPL. Basically, it behaves exactly like a GPL project, along with all the restrictions, because the GPL modifications are mixed in with the BSD code.
        protomyth 13y ago
        No, its not exact - I can still extract the BSD code out of the project and use it without the GPL restrictions. You didn't relicense the BSD code, you just included some code that has its own license. Relicense has a very specific meaning.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It would be legal to take BSD code and add an additional clause that said, "Not for military use." It's the same idea. You've changed the license by adding restrictions. The old version is under the old license. It's the same if you convert public domain code to the GPL.