Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:07:24 +0200

On 9/28/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know I shouldn't feed trolls but I suspect many other people may be
> reading this article in the same way as Alexander even if the views are
> different.
>
> On 9/28/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And here comes the arch paragon of "software freedom" jurisprudence:
> >
> >
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.pdf
>
>
>  I think you are misreading this article.  Please reread sections 2.1 and

2.1:

"The simplest case of notice preservation is unmodified incorporation
of a permissive-licensed file from an external project into a GPL'd
project"

It will cease to be a GPL'd project. It will become GPL'd portions +
BSD'd portions project. Suggesting that it will remain a GPL'd project
"as a whole" ("the totality") is incorrect and misleading.

> 2.2 carefully and note that the SFLC never suggests that the GPL either

2.2 is about the case when BSD'd work is tainted by GPL'd
modifications. Only GPL'd modifications are governed by the GPL. All
preexisting protected elements fall under the BSD. Straightforward way
to convey that fact is to keep the BSD on top and indent the GPL below
it with a notice that only portion(s) of this file are under the GPL,
not file/work "as a whole" ("the totality").

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                             -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor