Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <8h0qd0$g1q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Well, I don't go and grab random code off the net to put in
the
> baseline. Everything in OpenToken was either written by me or
was
> submitted to me via (acrhived) email for the express purpose
of being
> incorporated into the GMGPL baseline. But it certainly
couldn't hurt to
> formailze this process a bit more. I'd hate for there to be a
> misunderstanding.

Incorporating something into a GPL'ed program does not make
the incorporation GPL'ed. That is a common misconception, but
it is just that a misconception.

The issue is one of
redistribution. A derived work that contains GPL'ed code
can (under the rights obtained from the GPL) only be
distributed if all the other code has no more restrictive
licensing requirements.

So unless you have a very definite statement, preferably in
writing signed, an email message is unlikely to be taken as
a formal contract, or at least authenticity questions can
easily be raised in this context, you may be in trouble.
The statement must CLEARLY give the author's permission
for incorporating the code under whatever licence you are
using.

There is a lot of sloppiness in these kind of procedures with
code wandering around, but that sloppiness can come back to
haunt you in court later on.

Suppose someone offers you ten million dollars for a copy
of OPENTOKEN with all these changes. You might well find
that some of the other contributors object to getting $0.

Yes, that is far fetched, and of course in the case of
OPENTOKEN, there is unlikely to be a scenario in which
the legal issues are ever explored, but that does not mean
they do not exist. And Linux is after all quite another
kettle of fish when it comes to $$$$, I can easily imagine
some of the copyright holders for Linux getting persnickety
if things have not been done exactly right :-)



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.