5 ms·

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

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
> Okay, so changing a license to GPL does not violate the > conditions of the BSD. Yes, it does. Just because code is under the BSD license doesn't put it in the public domain. I still need to comply with its terms, and I'm not allowed to change the terms of other people's code. > You just have to maintain the little notice and the > copyright. In other words, I have to continue to comply with the terms of the BSD license. > If you want you can call it GPL+BSD but it's > obviously identical to GPL. It's not identical to the GPL, because all of the terms of the BSD license remain in force. I have to give attribution, I have to include the text of the BSD license, and (for the 3-clause version) I can't use the identity of the BSD'd library authors to promote my own work. When two works are combined, it is very important to know that their licenses are combined. > Basically, you can convert the same code from BSD to > LGPL to GPL to AGPL, but you cannot go in the other > direction. The LGPL -> GPL -> AGPL path exists because these licenses explicitly state that code they cover can be used under the terms of the "stricter" license. There is no such wording in the BSD license.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  You know what, I should have taken the time to link to Wikipedia in the first place. I thought this was widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Compatibility_and_multi-li... Are you disagreeing with the FSF's lawyers here?
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    > Are you disagreeing with the FSF's lawyers here? You linked to a source which has nothing to do with your argument, which makes me think you don't really understand the position you're claiming. If you say that it's legal to change the license of BSD-licensed code to GPL, that means you think it would be legal to: 1. Download the FreeBSD kernel. 2. Replace the LICENSE file with the GPL. 3. Replace the authorship and copyright comments with your own name. 4. Publish the resulting code online. Do you really believe that doing that would be legal? If so, that is such an extremely unusual position that I do not know what evidence would be required to correct you.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Does this link satisfy you? https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-c... I'm sure that one could contrive a GPL wrapper project to contain the BSD kernel. Nobody ever said anything about removing copyright notices or breaking license terms.
      - jmillikin 13y ago
        > Nobody ever said anything about removing copyright > notices or breaking license terms. You did. Your earlier posts stated: > almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. and > changing a license to GPL does not violate the conditions of the BSD Which, to me, appear to be clear and unambiguous statements that you feel it's legal to take some BSD-licensed code and change its license to the GPL.

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

> Okay, so changing a license to GPL does not violate the > conditions of the BSD. Yes, it does. Just because code is under the BSD license doesn't put it in the public domain. I still need to comply with its terms, and I'm not allowed to change the terms of other people's code. > You just have to maintain the little notice and the > copyright. In other words, I have to continue to comply with the terms of the BSD license. > If you want you can call it GPL+BSD but it's > obviously identical to GPL. It's not identical to the GPL, because all of the terms of the BSD license remain in force. I have to give attribution, I have to include the text of the BSD license, and (for the 3-clause version) I can't use the identity of the BSD'd library authors to promote my own work. When two works are combined, it is very important to know that their licenses are combined. > Basically, you can convert the same code from BSD to > LGPL to GPL to AGPL, but you cannot go in the other > direction. The LGPL -> GPL -> AGPL path exists because these licenses explicitly state that code they cover can be used under the terms of the "stricter" license. There is no such wording in the BSD license.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
You know what, I should have taken the time to link to Wikipedia in the first place. I thought this was widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Compatibility_and_multi-li... Are you disagreeing with the FSF's lawyers here?
- jmillikin 13y ago
  > Are you disagreeing with the FSF's lawyers here? You linked to a source which has nothing to do with your argument, which makes me think you don't really understand the position you're claiming. If you say that it's legal to change the license of BSD-licensed code to GPL, that means you think it would be legal to: 1. Download the FreeBSD kernel. 2. Replace the LICENSE file with the GPL. 3. Replace the authorship and copyright comments with your own name. 4. Publish the resulting code online. Do you really believe that doing that would be legal? If so, that is such an extremely unusual position that I do not know what evidence would be required to correct you.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Does this link satisfy you? https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-c... I'm sure that one could contrive a GPL wrapper project to contain the BSD kernel. Nobody ever said anything about removing copyright notices or breaking license terms.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      > Nobody ever said anything about removing copyright > notices or breaking license terms. You did. Your earlier posts stated: > almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL. and > changing a license to GPL does not violate the conditions of the BSD Which, to me, appear to be clear and unambiguous statements that you feel it's legal to take some BSD-licensed code and change its license to the GPL.