David Neary wrote:
> Branko Collin wrote:
> > > [snip...] for the rest, just declare everything GPL.
> >
> > Can anyone but the author declare something to be GPL'ed? How does
> > that work?
>
> If the non-GPL code is from a BSD licenced app, and is small
> enough not to be considered a derived work, then the inclusion of
> the original code has no licencing implications for the new code.
> At least that's my understanding of the issue.
>
> So when I say "declare everything GPL", I mean "don't get our
> knickers in a twist over 20 lines of code borrowed from a BSD
> licenced application" - if it is really 20 or 30 lines, then the
> likelihood is that whatever we ship wouldn't be called a
> derivative work, and we're free to licence it however we want.
In addition, since the GPL itself contains an advertising clause,
in so far as it obliges a certain header in GPL protected source
files, I don't see how it can consider this reason for an
incompatibility with the BSD type licence. I think that we can
keep most of the advertising clauses and still be fully GPL
compliant, in word and in spirit.
The BSD/Artistic/Apache type licences all permit relicencing, so
why not just relicence to GPL, and keep the advertising clause as
originally requested?
If someone can give me a decent explanation why the advertising
clause is a limitation on the liberty to modify the software, I'd
like to hear it. Otherwise, none of this code will cause me to
lose any sleep.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
