On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:53:07AM -0700, magnus@itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
I know you can make lgpl to gpl that is not the problem. reactos main licen is gpl. right. And gpl say you are not allown to change a sublicen to another licen. right.
Not quite, no. The GPL says that if you use GPL code, everything that you release that uses that GPL code must also be GPL. Thus (BSD + LGPL + GPL) -> GPL when it's distributed. BSD must be sublicensed, and LGPL must have it's GPL license conversion excercised. You no longer have the full BSD rights in the distributed code anymore, if you download it all as a whole.
than mean all other modules that are using a diffent licen like lgpl as wine dll does. it will become a sublicen.
I reiterate that it is not a sublicense in the case of the LGPL.
And 3d part like hotlix can not change any sublicen that reactos is using. they must release with same licen.
... they must release everything as GPL, if that's what you're trying to say ...
But if we in ros have change lgpl to gpl that is allown. or if hotlix did take the source direcly from wine. often are we using modify wine dll files and some part of the code will never goes back to wine, for it is reactos specfiy so it will working in reactos or windows, that will not work in wine under linux.
And none of these will have licensing issues.
Some other dll are under bsd licen, I have not check see if they have change that licen. but problade they have.
... And they would actually HAVE to change the license of the BSD code to be GPL, unless they downloaded the BSD code separately, or downloaded the BSD portions in separate, discreet sections. Why? Because you distribute ReactOS, as a whole, under GPL. BSD/no advert gives you enough rights to sublicense as GPL. Thus, you can include BSD code into a GPL project, and the BSD code thus distributed is no longer BSD -- it's been sublicensed out as GPL.
It would be totally correct of them to mark every file in their SVN as being distributed under the GPL (otherwise, ReactOS is doing something that is non-GPL compliant). They also have the option of discreetly downloading all of the sections that are non-GPL, and reconstructing those sections in order to retain the original licenses (though there's little point in that). But in either case, they aren't doing anything wrong with either the licensing or the sublicensing.
Since they're distributing the whole project as GPL, the point is moot -- since you distribute all of the files as GPL, then they can distribute the files (modified or not) as GPL. If they can't, then neither can you -- if they're distributing everything as GPL, and their out of compliance, then you must've been out of compliance to begin with.
-- Travis
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com