RE: wine-license digest, Vol 1 #70 - 3 msgs

> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > >This is *NOT* correct.  It is "Never USE this with any NON-GPLed
> > >product".  BSD people are affect too (if they don't want to change
> > >their license)
> >
> > And I state this is a problem further down in my message.  
> I see this as
> > the only real flaw in the GPL.  And it's a serious flaw.  A 
> necessary
> > flaw, of course; otherwise, someone would simply "wrap" the 
> code in an
> > X11 license, and then use *that* product as a basis for a commercial
> > product.
> >
> > But it is a serious flaw, nonetheless.

Yes and note that the LPGL has the same problem.
Make a BSD/X11 licensed library that the LGPL code uses,
then make a commersial product out of that library.

> One which I think I 
> cannot live
> > with, for my own projects, if I start another new one.  (It 
> won't stop
> > me from contributing to GPLd projects, though.)
> 
>   FWIW, the FSF is well aware of this situation, and it seems 
> that the new
> GPL v. 3 will contain new provision to allow the use of GPLed code in
> BSD/X11 codebases. 

How do they expect to do that? All BSD/X11 licensed code are
automatically under the GPL as well every other compatible license.

The only remotely reasonable way to do it AFAICS is to say that
no part of the GPL work may grant more rights that GPL does.

However that would automatically exclude all use of BSD/X11 or
for that matter the LGPL and even PD (public domain) code in
a GPL:ed work since not even the authors of the code can take
back the rights previously given through the BSD/X11 or the LGPL.

Even worse it would mean that if some author of some GPL:ed code
happened to out of "kindness" license some part of his code under
for example the BSD/X11 license to include in some other project
that part of the code could not longer be used by the GPL:ed work.

No. I don't think this problem is solvable at all.
Its a fundamental flaw that all copyright licenses must have.