BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
rmf at lookhere.com
Sun Feb 17 15:28:41 CST 2002
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > But the point I'm trying to make is that I can be in violation of
> > your RELICENSE. I can make a claim that YOUR work is
> > covered by the *GPL, so that your RElicense to me doesn't apply.
> > If this holds, then my original statement that you gave up your
> > copyright protection holds.
> I'm not sure I follow you.
> Yes, if my work is covered by *GPL, you can ALWAYS use it if you
> follow the conditions in the license.
yes, even if it contradicts your relicense. If you "work on" an *GPLed
product, what you do is automatically claimed by *GPL, thus you can't
make any license on your work that is *GPL free.
> Of course, if you later decide that oh well following the *GPL
> is not that bad in comparison after all, it is possible and
> even probably that I can't sue you for breaking the relicense
> as long as you follow the *GPL.
and if your are relying on your copyright protection to allow you
to benefit on the relicense, you don't have it in this case.
Remember also that the *GPL is pretty much irrelevent so long as you are
not distributing to the public, so it's not a great cost to choose to
go that route.
> The point it that you must show that you follow either *GPL
> or my relicense in order to not be a copyright infringer.
> You don't have to follow both though.
It's a little different, because I think the burden of proof is
different. Pending on the what you have in your relicense, it's
easy to show that the receiver is covered because they have the
software. On a GPL violation, you have to show that what they are
doing with the software is in violation of the license - which might
be much harder to show.
More information about the wine-devel