Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 16 12:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:10:03PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On May 16 11:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> >On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> >> >If in doubt, don't put it into the distro.  There is doubt, apparently.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I haven't been reading this too closely but I don't see why there's a
>> >> >> problem.  If the sources are being distributed along with the binaries
>> >> >> then the letter of the GPL is being maintained.  Unless you are
>> >> >> violating the BSDPL license terms and think someone is going to come
>> >> >> after you as a result, I don't see what the package's license terms have
>> >> >> to do with anything.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that it's not clear if BSDPL is an OSS license in the sense
>> >> >which is covered by the Cygwin license excemtption according to section 10
>> >> >of the GPL.
>> >> 
>> >> Why does it need a cygwin license exemption if we're distributing the source
>> >> code under the terms of the GPL?  Are we afraid that someone will take the
>> >> binary from our distribution and distribute it under another license?
>> >
>> >Don't make me nervous with legal stuff, that's unfair!
>> >
>> >AFAIU, an OSS product in excempt from becoming GPL'ed automatically when
>> >build against the Cygwin DLL only if the license is an approved OSS license
>> >given a specific definition of the term OSS.  The BSDPL license used for
>> >bsdiff is apparently questionable.  The important part is that BSDPL
>> >explicitely restricts it's openness in relation to the GPL, because the
>> >author of the BSDPL license doesn't want the code ever to become
>> >"GPL-tainted", whatever he means by that.
>> 
>> I understand that.  But the whole issue here is one of distribution.  If
>> we are distributing this under the terms of the GPL then we don't have
>> to worry since presumably we are complying with both licenses.  If
>> someone else wants to take the binary and distribute it outside of the
>> terms of the GPL, then the onus is on them to worry about the legal
>> issues.
>
>Ok, sorry, but I don't understand that.  What has the GPL to do with that
>in terms of the application under the BSDPL license, which explicitely
>refuses to put anything of it under the GPL?!?  You can't comply to both
>licenses for that reason.
>
>Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
>against the Cygwin DLL.  If you do that with an application which has
>a non-approved OSS license, you're infringing the Cygwin license if
>you don't GPL the code.  But if you GPL the code, you're infringing the
>BSDPL license.  So I don't see a satisfactory way out.

AFAIK, the GPL controls how an application is distributed.  I can do
whatever I want with GPLed code on my computer.  I just can't do
whatever I want once it leaves my computer.  So, it's not linking with
the Cygwin DLL that causes a problem, it's distributing what you've
linked.

I thought that there was some kind of strange clause in the license
which allowed closed source distribution (which there is) which wouldn't
be a problem for us, since we don't distribute things that way.  But,
nevermind.  I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to
impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is
licensed in this fashion.  So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread,
this makes the license viral.  So, you're right.  We can't use it since
including it would change the licensing of the entire distribution.

cgf