Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
>Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
>involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
>code? I don't see how that's relevant.
>> Sorry. I was very unclear.
>>
>> SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
>> GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not
>> GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first
>> definition, it is not a "work based on the GLIBC". It is simply SUN
>> RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any
>> compatible license. Because only "work, based" on GPL-licensed work
>> should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN.
>But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
>GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL
>guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the
>terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in
>violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever).
Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the
licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It
is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL
specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL
any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but
it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor
that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL.
Reply to: