A discussion on combining CDDL and GPL code

Posted May 26, 2016 23:12 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: A discussion on combining CDDL and GPL code by pboddie
Parent article: A discussion on combining CDDL and GPL code

> So, any attempt to distribute a binary under the terms of the GPL will end up violating the GPL

Not necessarily. Who owns the copyright in the binary? If they place the binary under the GPL, then they can't be sued for violating the GPL, and anybody who receives the binary under the GPL can presumably distribute it under the GPL.

After all, what does "the preferred form for modification" mean? If all you've got is the binary, then it's the *only* form for modification, so "preferred" is meaningless ...

Weird result, I know, but licences don't apply to copyright holders. Too many people forget this. And when you start mixing rights, you can end up with weird combinations.

Cheers,
Wol

A discussion on combining CDDL and GPL code

Posted May 27, 2016 13:12 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Not necessarily. Who owns the copyright in the binary?

Presumably it is the copyright holder. Otherwise, "anything goes" and the consequences would be very broad indeed. For example, you could machine-translate Harry Potter, sell copies, and not get sued by its apparently-already-litigious author.

If they place the binary under the GPL, then they can't be sued for violating the GPL, and anybody who receives the binary under the GPL can presumably distribute it under the GPL.

I don't think that "place the binary under the GPL" makes any sense whatsoever given that the act of distribution is governed by source code distribution provisions in the GPL. In effect, "I don't have the sources, so it's OK" is making a promise you can't keep.

Now, it might be the case that someone could take a permissively-licensed work, play the "place the binary under the GPL" game, then claim that they aren't obliged to provide the source, and state that they haven't violated the licence imposed by the copyright holder and have therefore not infringed any copyrights. That would be a misuse of the GPL, but I don't know what sanctions might be imposed on someone doing such a thing. Maybe something outside of plain copyright law would apply.