From: Alexander Terekhov (alexander.terekhovgmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2008 - 13:20:15 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman <rmsgnu.org> wrote:
[...]
> But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
> statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
> my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
> it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
> use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license"
but there is nothing in the revised BSD license allowing "relicensing"
under the GPL. Hint:

See Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In
Leicester, a real estate developer employed an artist to create
sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a building under
construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the owner the
exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the work, and a
non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. The
developer allowed a motion picture company to film the sculptural
elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion picture
company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the developer did
not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive right to make
two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course of the
litigation, the developer was granted a "sub-license" by the
building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the
artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect
could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive
license could not be sub-licensed. ... 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366.

regards,
alexander.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]