Re: [MacPerl] [ Somewhat OFFTOPIC ] Mac OS X Developer Tools

[Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com>]

At 21:26 -0700 2000.10.16, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
>  I can distribute a version of BSD cp under the "evil guy license" which
>gives you no redistribution rights whatsoever, and only lets you use it while
>standing doing a handstand.  This is allowed, and not particularly discouraged
>in the BSD community.  I know of several cases where this has been done.

What version? If it is actually BSD cp, then it is not your code -- you
don't own it -- and have no legal right to license it.


>  Going a little on the wacky side, I believe I can, in fact, even do the same
>thing with, say wget, which is GPL'ed, so long as the evil guy license does
>not allow you to do redistribute the software.  You would, however, be able to
>demand the source code to the program, and, assuming that the proper tools are
>available to you, make a free version, so the issue is in a larger sense moot.
>Anyway, I'd have to make a some effort to defend this, but I think I could if
>it were somehow worth it.

If you use GPL'd software in your kernel, your kernel is now a derivative
work and therefore also covered under the GPL, and I can do what I please
with it.  You can only do what you claim if the modificactions are not
distributed.  By redistributing it to me, you are allowing me to
redistribute it, since your redistribution must be under the GPL and
include the GPL along with it.  Section 3 of the GPL does not give you the
right to relicense, but gives you additional obligations to make source
code available, as long as you still adhere to Section 2 ("provided you
_also_ do one of the following ..."), which says that the work, if
derivative of a GPL'd work, is still GPL'd.  Under Section 3.c, I could
give away the GPL'd binaries of Mac OS X, as long as I included information
on how to get the modified source from Apple.


>  My point is that your assumption that "the code started out free implies
>that
>it remains free" is incorrect, at least in the BSD case, and you might get
>yourself into a bind if you assume that in a case where a vendor is feeling
>impolite about it.  I wouldn't recommend it.

There is a difference between using BSD-licensed code in an otherly
licensed project, and relicensing a BSD program.  cp is a BSD-licensed
program, and you can't change that.  However, if you have your own kernel
and use BSD code in it, you are fine.  Only the owner of something is
allowed to license it (or relicense it).  I wonder where the line is of
changing enough code that you can license it under another license?  Is it
one byte?  What about including your own Makefile?  Does the act of
compiling it make it your own?

I think we are essentially agreeing.  I was never saying including BSD code
in your program makes it free (Netscape has used bsd-db in Netscape
Navigator for years, which certainly didn't make it free), but only that a
BSD- (or GPL-)licensed program _IS_ free.  Since you don't relicense, my
original point stands, that someone can legally take the pieces that are
covered under free licenses and redistribute them as desired.

I also think you cannot relicense a BSD-licensed program (I guess the
question is how much the software has changed from the original?  where is
the line?), and you certainly cannot relicense & redistribute GPL'd
programs.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@pobox.com    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@osdn.com     http://osdn.com/

# ===== Want to unsubscribe from this list?
# ===== Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to macperl-request@macperl.org