GUI server tools?

[John]

Christopher Vance wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:25:41PM +0800, John wrote:
> 
>> As I understand BSD licences it's generally okay to incorporate BSD 
>> code into GPL code. A BSD licence is not "viral."
> 
> 
> Uh, only the author gets to choose the licensing.  Not the modifier,
> adopter, or user.  If you mix BSD stuff and GPL stuff, which is fine
> by the BSD license, the BSD license still applies to the BSD files,
> whether they were modified or not.
> 
>> Not the other way though.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  The GPL imposes conditions on the result of mixing BSD code
> with it, but the BSD code politely imposes none on the GPL code.  Is
> your freedom a matter of beer or speech?  Is it the person or the code
> that's free?
> 
> What this means is:
> 
> 1) person A writes code A and releases under BSD license;
> 
> 2) person B writes code B and releases under GPL;
> 
> 3) person C (or B) takes stuff from code A and code B to make code C,
> and releases under GPL;
> 
> 4) person D has every right to take code A files from code C, and
> follow BSD, whether or not person C made any modifications to those
> files; but if person D takes any files from code C which were not
> originally code A, then those files are still GPL.
> 
> Note that the order of 1 & 2, and the proportions of each in 3 makes
> no difference to 4.
> 
> If person C doesn't want his modifications to code A to be BSD, s/he
> will have to replace the code A entirely with an independent
> reimplementation, not just modify the existing code A.  Person C can't
> impose conditions on those bits of the code s/he didn't write.  (I
> guess the modifications could be provided in the form of original BSD
> code A plus GPL patches.)
> 
> Similar issues arise in code which is mixed GPL / LGPL - it's
> perfectly reasonable to take the LGPL parts out of a GPL collection,
> and treat the result as LGPL, since the person incorporating the LGPL
> stuff into a GPL collection doesn't have the right to remove freedoms
> already granted by the LGPL.
> 
I've just reread the BSD licence. Here it is, taken from Sarge.

Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
    without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.

I can release code under the GPL and comply with all those clauses. Can't I?

The GPL imposes further restrictions on (re)distributors in the greater 
interest of recipients. I can't think of how it the GPL negates any of 
those BSD conditions.

If my GPL product has untouched BSD-licenced files, that does not affect 
the licence for the product as a whole. RHL itself is GPL, but not all 
its contents are.