BSD legal question

Jan Grant Jan.Grant at bristol.ac.uk
Thu May 19 06:36:39 PDT 2005


On Thu, 19 May 2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Suppose I distribute a library that is under my own copyright,
> yet carries a BSD-like license.
> 
> Suppose you then come along and take my library, and a GPLed
> library, link both of them together into a new program of yours.
> 
> The FSF says that the entire code now becomes GPL.

That's not true. The GPL requires you to license any distributed code 
derived from GPLed code under the GPL. Since, as you point out...

> The problem here is that since you never owned copyright on
> my library, you do not have legal rights to modify the copyright
> and license on it.  Thus, you cannot legally apply GPL to it.
> Nor can the FSF or anyone else apply GPL to it.

... the conclusion is that you cannot *distribute* the derived program; 
NOT that it magically relicenses code you've used to build it.

> Naturally, the parts of the program you are distributing that
> YOU wrote are under GPL.  But, suppose another guy comes along,
> takes your program, and pulls my library out of it and uses it
> for his program.  According to the GPL, if he does this that
> library is GPLed now, and his program must be GPL. According
> to the law, though, it's not GPL, it's mine.

The problem is this: "the program you are distributing". The GPL 
prevents you from distributing such derived code for exactly the reasons 
you point out. You're free to do whatever you like with it, except 
distribute. In other words, by distributing the derived code, you're in 
breach of the GPL.

(The exceptions arise depending on whether the non-GPLed license form a 
core part of functionality or whether the resulting program is 
functional without the hypothetical TedLib.)

jan

PS. This is basic implication: you claim

P = "you distribute the code"
Q = "all of it is under the GPL"
and P -> Q.

I'm not taking issue with that; merely pointing out that (as you 
describe), Q is false, therefore since

-Q -> -P

the conclusion is that you can't distribute.

Incoherently yours, etc.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44 (0)117 9287088 or 3317661   http://ioctl.org/jan/
Theoremhood is positively decidable.
It just takes time at least exponential in the length of the proof.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list