Timeline for If some software states it is BSD-licensed, how can it be distributing itself with GPL/LGPL components?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2017 at 18:32 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | This means that either the GPL definition of a derived work is wrong, or (some types of) derived works can have a different license than the work they build upon. I would argue that the latter is true. | |
| Dec 3, 2017 at 18:32 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | @amon: Whether a work is a derived work of some other work is independent of the license that is used. The GPL can not use a different meaning of derived work than the BSD license (for example). If a project that use a third-party library really is a derived work of that library, then according to your interpretation, you can't use libraries with different licenses, because you would be creating a derived work of multiple originals with different license terms and you can't use both licenses on your code. | |
| Dec 3, 2017 at 18:08 | comment | added | amon | “there is no actual requirement to do so”? This answer may be rather misleading. If the VisIt software is a work based on the GPL-licensed library in a way that would make it a derivative work under copyright law then using the GPL is not a suggestion but the only legal way to publish such software. When a work is derivative is debated, but merely linking to a GPL library may make software a derivative work. Very different for the LGPL which allows this with some restrictions. So licensing under BSD when using Qt under GPL is not OK, but it would be OK when using Qt under LGPL. | |
| Dec 3, 2017 at 17:08 | history | answered | Bart van Ingen Schenau | CC BY-SA 3.0 |