4 ms·

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 ht

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.
        protomyth 13y ago
        > It would be legal to take BSD code and add an additional clause that said, "Not for military use." No, it would not be legal to add a clause unless you were the copyright holder of the BSD code.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Section 10 of the GPL says: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it. The BSD does not say anything like that, so you are allowed to add restrictions. This is why you can place the GPL alongside the BSD, because you are adding restrictions. The BSD has nothing that isn't already present in the GPL (it is "GPL-compatible"), whereas the GPL has lots of additional restrictions, but since the BSD does not prohibit this, it is fine.
        protomyth 13y ago
        > The BSD does not say anything like that, so you are allowed to add restrictions. That is not how copyright or the BSD license works. You don't get to change the terms, since BSD doesn't give you permission to change the terms. Only the copyright holder can change the terms.
        13y ago
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]

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.
        protomyth 13y ago
        > It would be legal to take BSD code and add an additional clause that said, "Not for military use." No, it would not be legal to add a clause unless you were the copyright holder of the BSD code.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Section 10 of the GPL says: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it. The BSD does not say anything like that, so you are allowed to add restrictions. This is why you can place the GPL alongside the BSD, because you are adding restrictions. The BSD has nothing that isn't already present in the GPL (it is "GPL-compatible"), whereas the GPL has lots of additional restrictions, but since the BSD does not prohibit this, it is fine.
        protomyth 13y ago
        > The BSD does not say anything like that, so you are allowed to add restrictions. That is not how copyright or the BSD license works. You don't get to change the terms, since BSD doesn't give you permission to change the terms. Only the copyright holder can change the terms.
        13y ago
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]