Aren't your concerns covered by these parts of the GNU GPL?
No. Read the whole GPL. You'll find provisions stating that a mere user does not have to accept and agree to the license (so a mere user isn't bound by the license and can ignore Sections 15 and 16). Only distributors are bound by the license so only they need to read the license.
False, because you've been *notified* that the implied warranties and liabilities had been disclaimed.
I have to laugh. How are you going to prove that the user was notified? He may have missed the notice. Unless you create a click-wrap agreement where the user is bound by the terms of the agreement (EULA) you can't enforce your notices. Implied warranties apply under applicable law in that case.
The "no warrantee" text in the GPL is a notice, not a license term.
Lame attempt. Those are SECTIONS of the license. Not a Preamble, not a notice. They are terms, which you need to accept. And as for "notices" attached somewhere: If the user doesn't willignly agree to them, he is not legally bound by them. Check the case law on click-wrap licenses.
But the copyright of the combined work as a whole is mine.
Copyright, yes. But the right to relicense my code, not.
I know very well what the copyright law says about derived and aggregated works. The copyright in the combination is yours. But you are not entitled to relicense my code. So you can't claim your combination is, as a whole, distributed under (and therefore governed by) a single license, i.e., the GPL. The truth is that your work is distributed under SEVERAL licenses, which a judge would work with as one whole license consisting of several licenses.
So, I'm going to say it for the last time: You have no right to claim that your work is distributed under the GPL. It is a lie and a crime. The GPL requires what you cannot do without my permission.
The _combination_ is licensed under the GPL. The _parts_ which were licensed under other, compatible licenses remain licensed as they were.
That's complete nonsense and invalid state. If you license the whole program (the combination) under a single license (GPL), then you are relicensing all portions. You have no right to do that unless you are the copyright owner or have his consent.
You have no right to state this program as a whole is under the GPL. Get it moron?
Let's look at the Section 7 of the GPL3. It states:
""Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.
When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it."
Now tell me, what exactly in the above don't you understand? It certainly is relicensing what the Section talks about.
So they're no distributing it under a more restrictive licence, they're distributing it under the BSD licence with no relicensing. So no problem, right?
That's a complex question. If they failed to display the origin, copyright ownership, license terms and conditions, then that would be relicening and that would be a problem. Because they would release it only under their own EULA.
The GPL expressly requires the whole program to be under the GPL. That inherently involves relicensing of non-GPL parts.
Now, before you try it, taking a BSDL-ed code and releasing it UNDER a more restrictive license (for example, under the GPL) is called relicensing, which the BSDL doesn't allow (on the contrary). Therefore, you need the consent of the copyright owner of the BSDL-ed code to release it UNDER the GPL.
It's not only GPL2, but GPL3 too. For those of you who don't understand why GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible with any other open source licenses (BSDL, Apache License, Mozilla PL, etc.) and why the GPL is called a 'viral' license:
Both the GPL 2 and 3 require that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, or any other FOSS license), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others do the same with my code, I can't do that (unless I own copyright in the BSDL-ed code, which I'd need to have the right change the license terms). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with all open source licenses (except perhaps the LGPL).
Relevant proofs follow.
Quote from GPL3: c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
Quote from GPL2: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. [...] when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
PS - Before you try it, taking a BSDL-ed code and releasing it under a more restrictive license (for example, under the GPL) is called relicensing, which the BSDL doesn't allow it (on the contrary). Therefore, you need the consent of the copyright owner of the BSDL-ed code to release it under the GPL.
Wrong. The GPL3 expressly and explicitly states (yes, read it) that mere users do NOT have to accept the license (only distributors do). Therefore, mere users can ignore the entire license and are NOT legally bound by it.
Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL author based on the assumption that you did not agree to the terms of the licence under which it was distributed.
As I wrote, you would be able to sue them based on IMPLIED warranties and liabilities under applicable laws. Fool.
FSF knows very well what they're doing. They have the communist "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" approach. They want GPL to be the only FOSS license in use.
but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.
Exactly THAT part is illegal. THAT is relicensing. And you have no permission under BSDL, Apache License, Mozilla PL, or any other major FOSS license to relicense the code.
GPL and other govern only distribution not usage. Here is relevant part of GPL
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
As a developer, I wouldn't touch a license that doesn't cover use. The disclaimers of warranties and limitation of liablities are an essential part of Free software. The GPL fails to bind the user to agree to the disclaimers and limitations and thus makes the developers and distributors subject to liabilities (because these things are implied by default under applicable laws).
It's not only GPL2, but GPL3 too. For those of you who don't understand why GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible with any other open source licenses (BSDL, Apache License, Mozilla PL, etc.) and why the GPL is called a 'viral' license:
Both the GPL 2 and 3 require that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, or any other FOSS license), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others do the same with my code, I can't do that (unless I own copyright in the BSDL-ed code, which I'd need to have the right change the license terms). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with all open source licenses (except perhaps the LGPL).
Relevant proofs follow.
Quote from GPL3: c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
Quote from GPL2: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. [...] when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
PS - Before you try it, taking a BSDL-ed code and releasing it under a more restrictive license (for example, under the GPL) is called relicensing, which the BSDL doesn't allow it (on the contrary). Therefore, you need the consent of the copyright owner of the BSDL-ed code to release it under the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
I've observed disclaimers of warantee in small print
Yes, and the enforceability of such disclaimers is very uncertain.
If you didn't get it, I don't know how else I could explain it to you. Sorry. Maybe read the posts again, and you'll get it.
You go check the case law on disclaimers of warantee.
I have. Otherwise I wouldn't have written about it.
What exactly were your points?
I suggest you read my posts again. I don't like wasting my time.
I might include some BSDcd-ed _files_ as part of a project which is _as_ _a_ _whole_ licensed under the GPL.
Again, under applicable law, such project would be in fact, as a whole, licensed under several licenses (GPL and BSD), not only under the GPL.
Aren't your concerns covered by these parts of the GNU GPL?
No. Read the whole GPL. You'll find provisions stating that a mere user does not have to accept and agree to the license (so a mere user isn't bound by the license and can ignore Sections 15 and 16). Only distributors are bound by the license so only they need to read the license.
False, because you've been *notified* that the implied warranties and liabilities had been disclaimed.
I have to laugh. How are you going to prove that the user was notified? He may have missed the notice. Unless you create a click-wrap agreement where the user is bound by the terms of the agreement (EULA) you can't enforce your notices. Implied warranties apply under applicable law in that case.
The "no warrantee" text in the GPL is a notice, not a license term.
Lame attempt. Those are SECTIONS of the license. Not a Preamble, not a notice. They are terms, which you need to accept. And as for "notices" attached somewhere: If the user doesn't willignly agree to them, he is not legally bound by them. Check the case law on click-wrap licenses.
Now what were we arguing?
It looks like I've proven my points. Congrats.
Theo? Is that you?
No, I don't write any code. Just for the record, I don't release any BSDL-ed code (I'm talking theoretical)
But the copyright of the combined work as a whole is mine.
Copyright, yes. But the right to relicense my code, not.
I know very well what the copyright law says about derived and aggregated works. The copyright in the combination is yours. But you are not entitled to relicense my code. So you can't claim your combination is, as a whole, distributed under (and therefore governed by) a single license, i.e., the GPL. The truth is that your work is distributed under SEVERAL licenses, which a judge would work with as one whole license consisting of several licenses.
So, I'm going to say it for the last time: You have no right to claim that your work is distributed under the GPL. It is a lie and a crime. The GPL requires what you cannot do without my permission.
Go read copyright law about derivative works. and moron yourself.
If you release my BSDL-ed code under your license (as the GPL requires) without my permission, I will sue you for license violation.
So? What are you trying to prove? The GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed work be relicensed "during" distribution. Do you understand?
You need some help.
Repeat after me:
You cannot release MY BSDL-ed code UNDER the GPL, without my consent. My portions of your work derived are governed by my license.
The _combination_ is licensed under the GPL. The _parts_ which were licensed under other, compatible licenses remain licensed as they were.
That's complete nonsense and invalid state. If you license the whole program (the combination) under a single license (GPL), then you are relicensing all portions. You have no right to do that unless you are the copyright owner or have his consent.
You have no right to state this program as a whole is under the GPL. Get it moron?
The only misinformative trolls are you.
Let's look at the Section 7 of the GPL3. It states:
""Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.
When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. "
Now tell me, what exactly in the above don't you understand? It certainly is relicensing what the Section talks about.
So they're no distributing it under a more restrictive licence, they're distributing it under the BSD licence with no relicensing. So no problem, right?
That's a complex question. If they failed to display the origin, copyright ownership, license terms and conditions, then that would be relicening and that would be a problem. Because they would release it only under their own EULA.
The GPL expressly requires the whole program to be under the GPL. That inherently involves relicensing of non-GPL parts.
Now, before you try it, taking a BSDL-ed code and releasing it UNDER a more restrictive license (for example, under the GPL) is called relicensing, which the BSDL doesn't allow (on the contrary). Therefore, you need the consent of the copyright owner of the BSDL-ed code to release it UNDER the GPL.
You didn't get it.
It's not only GPL2, but GPL3 too. For those of you who don't understand why GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible with any other open source licenses (BSDL, Apache License, Mozilla PL, etc.) and why the GPL is called a 'viral' license:
Both the GPL 2 and 3 require that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, or any other FOSS license), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others do the same with my code, I can't do that (unless I own copyright in the BSDL-ed code, which I'd need to have the right change the license terms). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with all open source licenses (except perhaps the LGPL).
Relevant proofs follow.
Quote from GPL3:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
Quote from GPL2:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
[...] when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
PS - Before you try it, taking a BSDL-ed code and releasing it under a more restrictive license (for example, under the GPL) is called relicensing, which the BSDL doesn't allow it (on the contrary). Therefore, you need the consent of the copyright owner of the BSDL-ed code to release it under the GPL.
Liability would be subject to license terms.
Wrong. The GPL3 expressly and explicitly states (yes, read it) that mere users do NOT have to accept the license (only distributors do). Therefore, mere users can ignore the entire license and are NOT legally bound by it.
Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL author based on the assumption that you did not agree to the terms of the licence under which it was distributed.
As I wrote, you would be able to sue them based on IMPLIED warranties and liabilities under applicable laws. Fool.
FSF knows very well what they're doing. They have the communist "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" approach. They want GPL to be the only FOSS license in use.
They have used BSD-licensed code in Windows
Any trustworthy reference to prove that point?
but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.
Exactly THAT part is illegal. THAT is relicensing. And you have no permission under BSDL, Apache License, Mozilla PL, or any other major FOSS license to relicense the code.
GPL and other govern only distribution not usage. Here is relevant part of GPL
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
As a developer, I wouldn't touch a license that doesn't cover use. The disclaimers of warranties and limitation of liablities are an essential part of Free software. The GPL fails to bind the user to agree to the disclaimers and limitations and thus makes the developers and distributors subject to liabilities (because these things are implied by default under applicable laws).
It's not only GPL2, but GPL3 too. For those of you who don't understand why GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible with any other open source licenses (BSDL, Apache License, Mozilla PL, etc.) and why the GPL is called a 'viral' license:
Both the GPL 2 and 3 require that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, or any other FOSS license), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others do the same with my code, I can't do that (unless I own copyright in the BSDL-ed code, which I'd need to have the right change the license terms). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with all open source licenses (except perhaps the LGPL).
Relevant proofs follow.
Quote from GPL3:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
Quote from GPL2:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
[...] when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
PS - Before you try it, taking a BSDL-ed code and releasing it under a more restrictive license (for example, under the GPL) is called relicensing, which the BSDL doesn't allow it (on the contrary). Therefore, you need the consent of the copyright owner of the BSDL-ed code to release it under the GPL.