[sldev] Fwd: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

[Nik Radford]

As far as I understand it, taking GPL code into BSD licensed code is fine,
as long as that code is flagged somewhere saying that "this code came from
a GPL license blah de blah" as long as the project is open source its
fine, however if someone else was to make a derived work from the BSD code
containing the GPL code and not distribute the source, then they would
have to remove the GPL code, am I correct?

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Callum Lerwick <seg at haxxed.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 16:41 +0000, Robin Cornelius wrote:
>>  > The viewer code is GPL so yes this
>>  > would then force the GPL on top of opensim and this would mean that
>>  > anyone making a derived version of opensim would have to publish
>> there
>>  > source as per the GPL.
>>
>>  No, this is simply wrong. This is the "GPL is viral" argument, and it
>> is
>>  pure FUD.
>>
>>  You are in no way forced to publish the entirety of opensim under the
>>  GPL. Worst comes to worst, you will be forced to remove the GPL
>> licensed
>>  code, and only the GPL licensed code, from opensim. The GPL can not
>>  force itself on to any surrounding code. That is not how copyright law
>>  works.
>>
>
> No offence meant here, but I think we're conflating a lot of issues
> and calling FUD an awful lot when some people are just trying to
> understand the issue. (Though clearly there is some anti-GPL FUD being
> propagated in earlier emails.)
>
> I support the GPL and want to avoid misunderstandings to, but I think
> in this case were confusing the desired outcome of the GPL -- that
> code remain under the GPL -- versus potential legal actions available
> to a project under the GPL.  Gigs and I just had a discussion about
> this on IRC.
>
> So I think you both are correct in a sense. There's no legally
> enforceable way to make a project adopt a license.  However, and I
> speak only from experience with the projects I deal with, when someone
> is suspected of violating the GPL -- usually by including GPL code in
> closed-source code -- a letter is sent saying, "hey, did you realize
> this? Can you either remove the code or release the code in an
> acceptable OSS license? If not, we'll have to consider legal action."
>
> Although, the legal action is never mentioned so overtly, of course.
> Hopefully you get my point and don't hold me too literally to the
> words in my example. :-)
>
> I think, too, that we're straying from the original issue, that being
> that their shouldn't be any fear of just reading code. Especially from
> a code base under another OSS license, even if there are some
> differences in the two licenses.
>
> Cheers,
> deryck
>
> --
> Deryck Hodge
> Senior Programmer
> Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive
> Samba Team
> http://www.devurandom.org/
> Anders Falworth in Second Life
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>


Nik.

------------------------------------------
E-Mail:    Nik at Terminaldischarge.net
(We)Blog:  http://blog.terminaldischarge.net