On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:38:17 -0700
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What the GPL does is require that full source for the program be included
> > with the program, and that full source, in my example, would include
> > a BSD-licensed XFS module.
>
> It also requires that the GPL be attached to that additional source
> component. Go back and read section 3 of the GPL again.
If you're referring to:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
...specifically "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"...
That certainly applies to "the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code", but I think you'd be hard-pressed to apply it to individual
source modules which themselves carry different license terms.
Consider the following example...
Let's say I e-mail you the source module linux/drivers/net/bsd_comp.c,
which carries the following copyright notice and license terms:
* Copyright (c) 1985, 1986 The Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
*
* This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by
* James A. Woods, derived from original work by Spencer Thomas
* and Joseph Orost.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
* 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
* may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
* ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
* OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
* OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
...and you use that source in a product which is distributed binary-only.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone to legitimately tell you that
you'd be legally bound by the terms of the GPL by using that source module.
> We've had this discussion before.
Well, I think you came to the wrong conclusion :-) 'Course, you shouldn't
take my word for it. I encourage you to speak to an attorney! I certainly
do whenever I have questions regarding software licenses.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message