OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:03:48 -0500 (CDT), Chris Watson <chris at voodooland.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> I'm not sure I fully understand the implications of this license.
>> Let's consider two scenarios.
>
>Right. I will try and clarify. This clause simply means. That given in
>your example my code P, Can not be put under the GPL or any other
>restrictions. If you add my code to a GPL app, the GPL would violate my
>license.

Not your license as you stated in your previous post. I see no clause
"you can't link it to the GPL" in the license.

> Hence making for a lawsuit. It's strictly meant to contain the
>GPL. Keeping GPL code GPL is fine. Trying to GPL my code is not fine. It
>would be illegal. I have no problem like i've stated if people want to GPL
>their code. That is their choice. But I need some guarantee that the
>clause 2 of the GPL cannot infect *my* code against my wishes. The
>standard BSDL does not ensure that. I have to have some clause that
>combats clause 2 of the GPL. Is this getting clear?

Your intention is clear, now, yes.

But your license *as currently written* doesn't forbid linking your
code with GPL'd code

> You are free to use my
>work in any fashion you choose. If it is used in a larger GPL work, I have
>no doubt a court would find the GPL does not apply to my code.

Now you have lost me.

I agree that a court would find this, but so what?

P is under your license.

PP is under your license.

Q is under the GPL.

Therefore anything that links with Q+PP must also be GPL'd.

So I ask you again, and I'd like you to answer yes or no, so I can
understand your position (and quote the relavant bits you are answering):

(1) is it your intention that the linking of Q with PP be illegal?

(2) is it your opinion, in your license as it stands, that a court would
actually rule that the linking of Q with PP is illegal?

> Regardless
>of clause 2. You used my code knowing that clause 3 in my license
>prevents the GPL from used on my copyrighted code. 

Correct PP is still licensed under your license, not the GPL.

But Q *is* licensed under the GPL. Is it your intention to forbid this
(presumably under the legal doctrine that Q is a derivative work of
PP)?

>Whatever code you
>write, you can let the GPL taint,

May I suggest that you stop using emotionally loaded language. If you
do so, you are likely to benwefit by finding your thought processes become
clearer.

I know you don't like the GPL; there's no need to labour the point.

> or put whatever license on it you wish.

So, in my example, you've no objection to me GPLing Q, even though it
means that some users of PP (those that use it with Q) will have to
GPL their code?


>The main point being once my code is BSDL'ed you can't take away the
>freedom offered by that license with the GPL or any other viral license.

But how is it taking away freedom?

It is no more doing so than using your code in a proprietary product,
which you are happy with. I don't understand your position.

>I see it as the standard BSDL with the added benefit that it stays BSDL.
>But my clause does not FORCE my will onto others, or FORCE them to use my
>license.

No more than the GPL does, or Microsoft's EULA does. All licenses impose
conditions, that's their whole point. If you don't like the license
conditions, don't use the code.

> It just enforces my license on my code. Nothing more nothing
>less. I hope I explained that well enough.

Nope.

 And as the 2nd call has been
>made to kill this thread from the lists, just reply to me privately if you
>wish to continue this. The lists is probably sick of this by now.
>



-- 
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head 
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).