3 ms·

Firstly, proprietary or not has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. The example I gave above was for fully open source software. The issue is that the GPL

Firstly, proprietary or not has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. The example I gave above was for fully open source software. The issue is that the GPL requires all the recipients of GPL software you distribute to also have the rights to distribute the software. Patent licences conflict with that. Secondly, you are not allowed to re-licence code that you do not own the copyright to (I guess a licence like WTFPL would permit it as well). Your example of taking BSD source and removing the BSD licence to replace it with a Shared Source licence is not something that is permitted. The text of the BSD licence is very clear on that point. I don't know why GNU fans continue to be confused about this. The BSD parts of a combined work will remain BSD licensed and the recipient of that source is fully able to utilise those BSD sections of the source code in ways the BSD licence allows. Putting a more restrictive licence on the combined work does not change that. >What you can not do is put BSD on the whole work, as that would conflict with the patent license. The BSD is a license that grant recipients full permission to distribute Again, it sounds like you are pretty confused about the issues here. The BSD licence merely covers copyright concerns. You do not need to provide a patent licence if you release code under a BSD style licence. The licence says that the copyright holder grants the recipient permission to copy, modify and redistribute the code. Any other obligations the recipient might have, such as patents, don't affect the copyright holders ability to grant that permission. I've said this several times now and I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. Yes there is a conflict for the recipient in the sense that they may only have the copyright licence to redistribute a binary, not the patent licence. But that is an issue for the recipient and does not affect the author's right to licence their work under a BSD style licence. For somebody going around accusing other of spreading FUD it certainly seems like you have a very weak grasp of the issues here.

belorn 13y ago
You a very confused about the whole thing (maybe a trait of BSD fanaticism?), so let me put it in terms you might understand. If you give me software, and tell me that I have full permission to distribute it, I might do so. If the day after you try to sue me for distributing your work, I will go to a judge and say: "judge, anon1385 told me that I had full permission to distribute the work, and here is the documentation that proves it." In the case that its the patent holder that sue me, I will still say the exact same thing to the judge. At that point, the patent holder will simply say that you did not have permission to grant such permission. Its not a complicated concept. If you have a contract with someone, you got to follow the contract. If the contract do not allow you to give free permission for distribution, you are not allowed to give free permission for distribution. Surely, you can understand that?
- stock_toaster 13y ago
  > ....(maybe a trait of BSD fanaticism?)... downvoted for ad homenim
  - belorn 13y ago
    Fair enough, two wrongs don't make a right. Out of curiosity, did you upvote/downvote the potshot about "GNU fans"?
    - stock_toaster 13y ago
      I did neither upvote nor downvote, and in fact didn't even notice it. Searching the page I do indeed find it now. I am by no means the "be nice police". For some reason I found your post a bit less acceptable. Maybe because the other was more broadly painted, and yours seemed a bit more... personally directed?

belorn 13y ago

You a very confused about the whole thing (maybe a trait of BSD fanaticism?), so let me put it in terms you might understand. If you give me software, and tell me that I have full permission to distribute it, I might do so. If the day after you try to sue me for distributing your work, I will go to a judge and say: "judge, anon1385 told me that I had full permission to distribute the work, and here is the documentation that proves it." In the case that its the patent holder that sue me, I will still say the exact same thing to the judge. At that point, the patent holder will simply say that you did not have permission to grant such permission. Its not a complicated concept. If you have a contract with someone, you got to follow the contract. If the contract do not allow you to give free permission for distribution, you are not allowed to give free permission for distribution. Surely, you can understand that?

stock_toaster 13y ago
> ....(maybe a trait of BSD fanaticism?)... downvoted for ad homenim
- belorn 13y ago
  Fair enough, two wrongs don't make a right. Out of curiosity, did you upvote/downvote the potshot about "GNU fans"?
  - stock_toaster 13y ago
    I did neither upvote nor downvote, and in fact didn't even notice it. Searching the page I do indeed find it now. I am by no means the "be nice police". For some reason I found your post a bit less acceptable. Maybe because the other was more broadly painted, and yours seemed a bit more... personally directed?