Re: Forking and relicensing issues (different)
In message <[🔎] 19990509111257.A859@visi.net>, Ben Collins writes:
>Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
>The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
>protect the innocent):
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms of Progfoo, with
>or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
>conditions are met:
>
>1. Redistributions of source code must retain any existing copyright
> notice, and this entire permission notice in its entirety,
> including the disclaimer of warranties.
>
>2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce all prior and current
> copyright notices, this list of conditions, and the following
> disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
> with the distribution.
>
>3. The name of any author may not be used to endorse or promote
> products derived from this software without their specific prior
> written permission.
>
>ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of the
>GNU General Public License, in which case the provisions of the GNU
>GPL are required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions. (This clause is
>necessary due to a potential conflict between the GNU GPL and the
>restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.)
>
>THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
>WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
>IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
>INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
>BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
>OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
>ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
>TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
>USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
>DAMAGE.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm pretty
sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know how they
were handled. This is just from a discussion I had with someone.
Can you take GPL'ed code and use it with a closed source program? i.e.
take the GPL'ed program do_everything and someone wants to write a library
for it that's do_one_more_thing but keep the library closed, is that OK? If
they want to distribute and sell that, they distribute the source code to
the GPL part (with modifications), and the binary (executable), right? I
would assume it is, but modifications etc. to the original GPL code must be
made public. Am I missing something here, or is that about the extent of
it? Or is that illegal under the GPL and the entire source code must be
made public because its used with some GPL'ed code?
Nils.
Reply to: