Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 15:46 UTC, submitted by anonymous
OpenBSD project creator Theo de Raadt detailed his concerns regarding BSD-licensed code and Dual-BSD/GPL-licensed code being re-licensed under only the GPL (as previously discussed): "Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to... Break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact." Regarding the concern that the BSD license allows companies to steal code, Theo reflected: "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope - the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out."
Thread beginning with comment 267918
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-08
"My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them - but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what's that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?)."
So do you believe the dual licensed files cannot be made closed-source? I'm sure the GPL folks are more than happy to leave in those precious BSD attribution clauses if it also means that dual licensed files can't become closed-source :-)
Member since:2005-10-02
My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them - but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what's that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?).
The copyright holder disagrees. Besides that - such a BOTH-licenses-at-the-same-time would be GPL-incompatible.
The passage in the GPL about passing on all your rights does not mean you can pass on restrictions or add extra clauses. Such clauses would make the license GPL-incompatible.
Member since:2007-07-10
The copyright holder disagrees
That only applies in this specific case, what he says doesn't magically make that the precedent for dual-licensing (it doesn't even make it for this one, it just means he can selectively enforce/ change around the licences he's using).
In addition, the BSD licence is LESS restrictive than the GPL, and you (the distributor/ editor) aren't adding extra clauses, you're keeping the ones that are there, there. If you took something that was gpl and then added the bsd licence to the entire code, that's where you'd hit that block.
Member since:
2007-07-10
Why should we believe you? No one here's a lawyer, but Theo de Raadt has more on the line than OSnews comment score in regards to legalities like this. And one thing's for sure - wrong or right, there's nothing simple about this problem. While what he says about the totality of the author's rights is clear (it's the center of copyright law), dual-licencing is a gigantic mess that has (to the best of my knowledge) never been probed in the courts - which the only way to establish the 'right' view on it.
My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them - but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what's that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?).