Re: License Conflict in slmodem-2.9.5
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:07:28AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> writes:
> > The inclusion of the GPL licensed file triggers the requirements of
> > section 2b of the GPL, which requires that the entire work be GPL'd.
>
> This is not *quite* true. It requires that the combined work be
> distributed under the terms of the GPL, which introduces another
> option for them.
Well I was talking about binary distribution. I guess I should have
been more explicit. But a binary distribution causes a combined work to
be made and due to the inclusion of the GPL licensed source forces the
entire combined work to be GPL licensed.
> > Solutions to the problem are as follows:
> >
> > 1) License all files under the GPL and include source for the two object
> > files.
>
> Simply providing the source for the two object files would be
> sufficient to comply with the GPL. That's what GPL-compatible means.
> This is the other option I mentioned: they need change no licenses,
> merely include the source code.
True. That is another potential option, I just forgot to mention it. I
was thinking there were more than 2 but when I wrote the email couldn't
remember the other one(s).
> > 2) Change the license on modem_at.c. How you do this depends upon to
> > what degree you own the copyright to this code.
> >
> > a) You have complete copyright to the code and remove the GPL license
> > replacing it with your existing license. Alternatively, you could
> > dual license (i.e. say you can use either your license or the GPL).
> > Both of these are essentially the same as your license is GPL
> > compatible anyway.
>
> No. One of these is a copyleft, the other is not.
I think you're splitting hairs here. I meant essentially the same in
regards to resolving the problem. Obviously they are different
licenses with different conditions.
In this case anyone can modify and relicense the code provided they
maintain the copyright notice and disclaimers. So unless they change
the license not to permit such an act, it's essentially duel licensed
whether they directly say it is or not.
By definition it would not be GPL compatable if this were not true.
--
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
Reply to: