On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:34:43AM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: >> The three clauses of the BSD license used by Pd Vanilla are compatible with >> both >> the GPL v2 & v3 > > Integrating GPL code with BSD code makes GPL the overall dominant > license, as in it has all the clauses of BSD and makes the most > restrictions. The BSD license still applies to any portions still under > BSD license. > > The pdextended license (GPL) doesn't say to which parts of the programme > it applies, and all the copyright/license notices I can find (in a bêta > of 42) are all BSD. Changes & additions to BSD code don't have to be > under the BSD license, thus if it's not stated, it's somewhat harder to > make any assumptions...
According to "Intellectual Property and Open Source" by Van Lindberg[1] (which I highly recommend), a patch which is offered up on a mailing list or through a patch tracker comes with an implicit grant of license to use it in the project, which means that it must be licensed under the same terms as the project itself. I can't imagine that some sort of submarine licensing attempt would hold up in court: "Yes, I acknowledge that my patch was against a file with a BSD license header, but even though I didn't say so, I contributed it under the terms of the GPL and I refuse to grant a BSD license". Gimme a break! I think it's rational to assume that mistakes notwithstanding[2], all content of any BSD-licensed file in the Pd source is under the BSD license, and all content of any file with a GPL notice is under the GPL. If any contributor ever intended some other outcome but did not communicate their desires explicitly, that cannot possibly be worth worrying about. To make trouble, the disgruntled contributor would have to be A) prepared to sue over the distinction between two free software licenses and B) prepared to lose. > That kind of license fuzz is tolerated because pd developers have no > expectation that lawyers ever have to put their nose in the project... > and even if they did, they would not have the background to know how to > fix it, or know which advice they can trust. While copyright violations do not result in injunctions unless a litigant appears, I do not believe it is in the interest of any project to neglect the law. > I think that this is true of many (if not most) open/free projects. I'm not comfortable with that generalization. Open source projects with commercial involvement tend to be fastidious about intellectual property, and there is a lot of activity in that area these days. Indeed, part of the appeal of Apache projects is that the ASF is known to emphasize IP cleanliness, and companies feel more comfortable sponsoring development on projects that aren't likely to be sunk by completely avoidable legal problems. Ever increasing numbers of developers are paid to work on open source, which is a glorious and beautiful thing. But personally, even before most of my open source dev work was sponsored, I was careful about IP, partly because it's the right thing to do and partly because I was determined not to squander untold hours of labor and creativity. I don't think that outlook is uncommon. It makes sense for us as developers to protect our investments by doing our best to understand and adhere to relevant laws -- whether our livelihoods depend on it, or whether we work on a project for fun or other personal reasons. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-Protecting/dp/0596517963 [2] Mistakes do happen. Sometimes they are fixable: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-675?focusedCommentId=12901057&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-12901057 _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
