The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

[Vim_User]

I am quite astonished how many people that are discussing licenses here or in other threads on Phoronix actually don't really have a clue of the licenses they talk about. At first, a license is not the only part that has to be considered, also the laws in the jurisdiction of the projects leadership, the articles on the blog of the VLC project are a good read for that: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...source-project
This shows also that it actually is no problem to re-license something away from the GPL (even if it is in this case only to LGPL, but nonetheless), as long as all code-contributors agree with that or a CLA exists that actually allows that directly, like Canonical's CLA. This has been done with VLC, it has been done with Sorcerer GNU/Linux (switching to a different license, which caused a fork to happen and the GNU/Linux to be removed from the name).
There were absolutely no legal issues with that and the existing codebase had not to be re-written. You also can be pretty sure that Canonical's legal department has made the CLA waterproof in this regard.

When I see the uncertainties and misconceptions here I can only recommend to anyone planning to contribute to an existing project (or planning to choose a license for a new project) to actually visit a lawyer and make sure that the licenses are really saying what you think they are and which copyright and author right laws are in place in the country where the main development takes place, this can make a significant difference.

[Hamish Wilson]

Its not hard to grasp. Its what the GPL says. It does not protect the copyright holder. It protects the code. And it says so specifically. There is no wrong way to interpret it. It says what it says clearly.

Yes, it protects the code that is licensed under it. But as soon as the copyright holder changes the license the code no longer needs to abide by it. This is true of any software license, or any copyright claim in general. It is a general principle of copyright law. If it did not work this way, there would be no way for proprietary code to be freed as the code would permanently need to abide by the original licensing terms, regardless of the choices of the current copyright holder.

[duby229]

Not if you own all of the code used, which the GPL does not weigh on one way or another. You still own the code even if you yourself originally license it under the GPL. The only thing that can change this is if the project receives contributions from outside contributors who in turn own their code, unless they grant the ownership to you through the use of a CLA. Why is this basic legal concept so hard for you to grasp?

You are correct as so far as the fact that the originally owner can not stop other people from using code he released under the GPL under the license terms specified in the GPL. That does not apply to his re-licensed code however, and this does not stop him from taking all of his own code and re-licensing it, GPL or not. It is not some magic bullet that withdraws all ownership, unless they added a clause that removes a persons ownership over their own code in GPL4, which would cause it's own problems.

Its not hard to grasp. Its what the GPL says. It does not protect the copyright holder. It protects the code. And it says so specifically. There is no wrong way to interpret it. It says what it says clearly.

It doesnt say that it protects an "instance" (version? copy?) of the code or whatever it is that you think it says. It doesnt matter how the copyright holder relicenses it. If it is also protected by the GPL then its terms need to be abided by.

[Hamish Wilson]

Relicensing your code is not a violation of the GPL, but any code that is protected by the GPL that is used in the relicensed distribution still needs to comply with its terms.

Not if you own all of the code used, which the GPL does not weigh on one way or another. You still own the code even if you yourself originally license it under the GPL. The only thing that can change this is if the project receives contributions from outside contributors who in turn own their code, unless they grant the ownership to you through the use of a CLA. Why is this basic legal concept so hard for you to grasp?

You are correct as so far as the fact that the originally owner can not stop other people from using code he released under the GPL under the license terms specified in the GPL. That does not apply to his re-licensed code however, and this does not stop him from taking all of his own code and re-licensing it, GPL or not. It is not some magic bullet that withdraws all ownership, unless they added a clause that removes a persons ownership over their own code in GPL4, which would cause it's own problems.

[jayrulez]

but any code that is protected by the GPL that is used in the relicensed distribution still needs to comply with its terms.

No, the relicensed distribution does not need comply with the GPL. The relicensed distribution only needs to comply with the new license.

[duby229]

You clearly do not understand this and you do not seem to be interested in understanding it so further correspondence regarding this is pointless.

Regards!

Going by what your understanding, If I author a piece of code, license it under GPL to Mark, license under BSD to Jim, and sell a proprietary piece of software based on the code to company X under a proprietary license, your claim is that I have violated the GPL. Now who will enforce compliance upon me for violating the GPL by distributing my work under another licence apart from the GPL? Will some random person I have violated the terms to use my code in the way I see fit? or will I claim violation against myself?

As long as you comply with the terms of the GPL then it isnt a violation. As far as who enforces it, well that is the big problem. The FSF doesnt have the resources to enforce it, and there really isnt any case law on this matter to determine liability. Relicensing your code is not a violation of the GPL, but any code that is protected by the GPL that is used in the relicensed distribution still needs to comply with its terms.

[johnc]

X isn't going away anytime soon. We're watching Wayland, but for now, X is what we've got.

Thank you for the information.

[alanc]

Has Oracle indicated what they intend to do for Solaris going forward, now that X is kinda being retired and GNOME told them to pound sand?

X isn't going away anytime soon. We're watching Wayland, but for now, X is what we've got.

[jayrulez]

If its the same code then its the same code. It doesnt protect the idea of the code.

You clearly do not understand this and you do not seem to be interested in understanding it so further correspondence regarding this is pointless.

Regards!

Going by what your understanding, If I author a piece of code, license it under GPL to Mark, license under BSD to Jim, and sell a proprietary piece of software based on the code to company X under a proprietary license, your claim is that I have violated the GPL. Now who will enforce compliance upon me for violating the GPL by distributing my work under another licence apart from the GPL? Will some random person I have violated the terms to use my code in the way I see fit? or will I claim violation against myself?

[duby229]

If its the same code then its the same code. It doesnt protect the idea of the code.