On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the
license. It is just that the BSD license allows you to add
additional restrictions. The GPL adds one restriction: whenever
you give someone the software, you have to also give them the
source code.GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional
restrictions, and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying
that it's good or bad).It can also be counted as several additional restrictions, depending
on the way one reads it.So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a whole,
you have to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library
included in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If
you download list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd- extended. So its BSD.If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify
BSD externals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd- extended, they don't have to distribute the source to those
modifications, despite your claim that Pd-extended has a license «
as a whole ». That person doesn't have to take anything apart
(debundle) or whatever.The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than
what you seem to be claiming.
There are many examples of software that includes code that has many
different licenese. ffmpeg/libav is an example. It not only gives
you ./configure flags to support different licenses, but also includes
non-free code, that when linked together into a binary is not legal to
distribute.
Perhaps in theory this is bad. Then there is theory and there is
practice. I'll bet there are many people who are glad to be able to
compile this non-free ffmpeg, because once they have the binary it
will be able to do things that the free ffmpeg cannot.
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!