No, I don't think this is quite correct. GPL cannot be revoked by the author and, what is more, a new version being classed as a 'derived work' would still under the terms of GPL be classed as GPL and the original author couldn't do anything about it. - Linus faces this issue with future versions of Linux, he doesn't like GPL 3 and won't accept it but he can't take GPL 2 off Linux kernel since it is an evolving project and is derived from previous versions.
If the author, however, stated that the code could be used within GPL projects with a primary license being an alternative to GPL and that the use of the software within GPL projects was under the proviso that the rights of the author and the original license weren't broken then GPL couldn't be enforced... strictly speaking this may mean that you wouldn't be strictly legitimate in using the software in many GPL license scenarios since the licensing terms conflict, however, some 'open source' communities don't seem to care about that as much as we do. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Guenther Sent: 04 April 2006 23:49 To: OpenBSD-Misc Subject: Re: GNU license files rules replacement guidelines with BSD one On 4/4/06, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not sure that this is a simple question, but what's the rules if > any, or guide line someone can go under to replace files and code with > BSD type in a project for example. > > I need some help understanding what's right and what's wrong and where > the line is if any and what's proper and what's not. > > Let say that you have a GNU project and that you need to keep full > compatibility with the system calls, in/out, same function names and in > some cases structure, but the way the process is done is different. > > At what point is it correct and possible to ripe a GNU file and replace > it with a BSD file if possible. > > Can that be done? > > What about if a file only have include files left in it, but is still > under a GNU license. I guess it can't be replace right? > > Example would: > > /* ==================================================================== > * license text > * bla bla bla > * > */ > > #include "shit.h" > > and shit.h is a file from that project but the content of shit.h have > changed or will changed. > > Is that burn in for ever in it's life and the only way to do this would > be to have a new file called newshit.h and then call it from ever > everywhere shit.h was called from. > > I hope my question make sense, I am trying to understand that process if > that's even possible to understand it somewhat. > > I am just trying to understand the process and how it's getting done > properly. I see on Google that some project were GNU and then got switch > to BSD after some part that were include in the original project were > replace by other BSD version. So, no more GNU was there, so it didn't > apply anymore. > > Google give me huge results on the subject, but so far, nothing clean > that I can understand properly. SO, I guess it's not an easy question. > > I hope I am not offending anyone asking that question! My understanding is that the owner of the copyright can change the license at any time, but that that change only applies to new versions. So: if you are forking someone else's GNU code then you can't arbitrarily make it BSD (because of the restrictions in the GPL). I think, though, that it doesn't work the other way; the very open BSD license allows for someone to take BSD code, make a change (or none?) and relabel it all GPL. if you are the original author of the code (and you haven't given the rights away) then you can change the license at any time, but that change only applies to new versions. You can take down old versions but it's still perfectly legal for anyone with a copy of it to post it and continue to work on it under the old license. Correct me if I'm wrong! -Nick
