GPL compliance

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 15:00 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> Reread clause 6:
> 
>    ...the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
>    licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these
>    terms and conditions. ...
> 
> The original licensor, in one case, is Red Hat.  You receive a license
> from Red Hat, subject to T & C.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

* A gives a work to B under the GPL.
* B gives the work to C under the GPL.
* Now C has a license *FROM A* (the GPL) without having to contact A.

Is this what you are saying?


> Nobody's talking about contacting RH; that's why they used a general
> public license, in this case the GNU one.

I thought that's what you were saying. If that's not what you are
saying, then what *are* you saying?

> I believe it to be a sad fact that some developers share your
> misunderstanding and claim a single-(re-)license (oh, say GPL) and its
> coverage of an entire derivative when parts of it are owned by someone
> else who uses a different license.

If parts of the work were under a license that doesn't allow
redistribution under the GPL then you can't apply the GPL to the whole.
I don't think most people would be confused about that part. You can
only use the GPL to cover the entire derivative when all the original
components were GPL-compatible. I never said that you could grab GPL
incompatible software and relicense it under the GPL, that's silly.

Daniel.
-- 
http://opendocumentfellowship.org
  "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
  unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself.
  Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable men."
        -- George Bernard Shaw