Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > Section 2 deals with
> > > this modification. Subsection 2c talks about licensing as a "whole".
> > > This section does not require each individual source file to be GPLd.
> > > Evidence of this can be seen in the occasional BSDL file in the GNU and
> > > Linux source trees.
> >
> > True. However, the BSD license allows relicensing (sort of), as long
> > as its terms are respected. So, technically, those BSD files are
> > GPLed when distributed with the GPLed project, as the GPL requires.
> > BSD (at least the new one) doesn't enforce any restrictions beyond the
> > GPL, so you're OK with this one.
>
> Errh, I keep hearing this misconception that BSD code can be relicensed as GPL
> code, but can not figure out where it comes from. How can you re-license BSD
> *source code* as GPL code?
>
> The author of BSD code has told me (and everyone else for that matter)
> that I can redistribute it w/out following the requirements of the GPL
> (all I have to comply with is the far fewer conditions placed in the
> BSD license). Now you want to tell me that, by virtue of someone
> adding a line of GPL code to it, that the whole kit and kaboodle has
> been converted to GPL and I can no longer do what the author of the
> BSD code told me I can do (namely, redistribute it without complying
> with the GPL)? Well, if you try to do that, I can remove that line of
> code and say forget you, I will distribute the code in compliance with
> BSD but in violation of the GPL. And what is your remedy for this act
> of mine? Can you stop me from doing it? No, obviously not. What
> does that mean? That the GPL does not apply to the "modified work as
> a whole" -- i.e. to the BSD code. That is, the BSD code is not under
> the GPL. This is so obvious, I find it hard to believe people keep
> spreading this interpretation of yours as if it were true.
This debate isn't really right for -devel, I don't think. -legal or maybe
even -project.
I'm not going to answer Andreas's whole mail (apart from anything else,
I've argued with Andreas for weeks in the past, and I don't think I can
convince him).
However, I will briefly try to address this misconception:
The situation: X is a BSD product. Y is a GPL'ed product, incorporating X
(or possibly a modified version of X).
The *whole* is GPL'ed. This is OK, since the GPL doesn't demand anything
that the BSD forbids, and the BSD doesn't demand anything that the GPL
forbids. The bits which are, in isolation, Y, are GPL'ed. The bits which
are, in isolation, X, are still BSD.
IOW, Andreas is quite correct here. Nothing can stop someone from
stripping out X and redistribute it, ignoring the GPL.
A work as a *whole* can have a license as a *whole* which is different
from the licenses of some of its parts. As long as it is possible to
simultaneously satisfy *all* the licenses, the whole can be distributed.
To distribute any part, you need only satisfy the license on that part.
So a combined BSD/GPL work is quite possible since it is quite possible to
simultaneously satisfy all the terms of the GPL and those of the BSD. A
combined QPL/GPL work is *not* possible, since it is *not* possible to
simultaneously satisfy the terms of the QPL and the GPL (since both are
considerably more restrictive than BSD).
In particular, the GPL demands that any derived work be distributed in a
form which allows modification and redistribution of the modified work,
source and binary. The GPL further defines 'source' in such a way that it
is clear that it includes the source to any required libraries. The QPL,
however, forbids distribution of modified source and binaries, except
under a few special conditions.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: