| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Advice on relicensing from the SFLCAdvice on relicensing from the SFLCPosted Sep 7, 2007 10:12 UTC (Fri) by JCR (guest, #47234)Parent article: Advice on relicensing from the SFLC
I seriously doubt John W. Linville is licensed to practice law anywhere on this planet. What he has suggested above is blatantly illegal in most all countires covered by the Berne Convention. A real lawyer could be disbarred for giving bad advice to his clients which instructs the client to break the law.
Anyone who follows the above instructions will be infringing on copyrights and will probably get sued for it. If you don't believe me, then read this:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118901954525700&...
(Log in to post comments)
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 7, 2007 21:07 UTC (Fri) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link] So where are you licensed to practice law, Jonathan C. Roberts?
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 7, 2007 23:15 UTC (Fri) by JCR (guest, #47234) [Link] I never said I was licensed to practice law, but we both know I am the least of your problems...
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 17, 2007 22:40 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] He appears to be licensed to throw accusations around at random. I'mhaving sufficient trouble compiling a list of kernel devs he has accused without evidence of theft or other crimes that I think it might be easier to compile a list of those he *hasn't* unjustly accused.
Best plonked.
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 8, 2007 7:20 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] The post to your authoritative source of fact (a post you made on a BSD list) deals with a completely different issue than the one posited by the SFLC. The SFLC is saying that when it's BSD licensed and the license is included as a copyright file AND not on the code, AND the code is being incorporated into a GPL project that the licensing terms listed in the BSD copyright file be transfered into the source files (as well as including the copyright file in the subdirectory where the BSD code is) to make sure ownership of different source files is clear.The gist of what they say is when you put a copyright file in you put the GPL one in the root directory (as the project is assumed to be GPL) to avoid confusion, copy the BSD copyright notices into the BSD code (if they don't exist) and make sure it's totally clear what code is GPL and what code is BSD. Your post deals with using GPL code in BSD or trying to change the license on code and as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the advice of the SFLC. Did you even read what was written or did you just think that you could willy-nilly switch the GPL and permisive license stuff around and the advice is the same? What this article deals with is clarifying ownership of code, not relicensing anything as you seem to believe. Read the following from the article: If maintainers have some files that must always remain under more permissive terms, the stewards of the codebase should take great care to obtain explicit assent from each contributor to the file in question. The contributor should indicate agreement that the changes available under the permissive terms, not GPL.
|
|
||||||||||||