Is BSD really comatible with GPL and closed source licenses?

[Kevin McGuire]

Ooh speak of the devil, i wrote a program earlier you should all see... instead of uploading it i think i can just about fit the file in here.

Code: Select all

//main.c
//You May Redistribute this code under any license you wish.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
puts("I like cheese");
}

I call it up yours you arrogant bastard, don't argue with Solar cause he burns good. And as you may have noticed the license allows redistribution under any license you wish.

You gave me a non-exclusive license to distribute it. A license gives someone certain rights, but does not transfer the copyright. There is no right associated with a copyright that you can grant me with a license that allows changing of the license granted to me.

For you to allow me to change the license you must give me the right to the copyright, and this can only be done in written form signed by you, and maybe even to be completely legally sound in the U.S. actually sent to the appropriate government facility.

You can give me a non-exclusive right to distribute it, but I can not give someone else that right. A contract might do something in this case, I have no idea. A license is a form of a grant of a right or rights of intellectual property to someone in this context. I am unable to license it to someone else. If you gave me the proper rights then I could use it in something of my own, but as far as I know you still retain the exclusive rights unless we have some sort of contract with might keep you from changing you're mind all of the sudden.

This stuff is weird, very.

Here a snippet of interesting value:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright# ... _licensing

It is controversial, however, whether it is possible for a copyright holder to truly abandon the copyright of their work. Robert A. Baron argues in his essay "Making the Public Domain Public" that "because the public domain is not a legally sanctioned entity," a statement disclaiming a copyright or "granting" a work into the public domain has no legal effect whatsoever, and that the owner still retains all rights to the work not otherwise released. The owner would then have the legal right to prosecute people who use the work under the impression that it was in the public domain. It is certainly true that under some jurisdictions, it is impossible to release moral rights.

It is stating that (above) this and in this snippet that transferring you're rights into the public domain might not be possible and take note this is for the United States.

[Tyler]

I don't see how that stops you changing the license. I have clearly given permission for you to change the license even though i maintain the copyright. The LGPL allows conversion to the GPL without passing on the copyright. Useful as i do not with to pass on copyright for such an awesome program.

[Kevin McGuire]

You got me on that one. Here is a interesting thread.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-l ... 00976.html

Under French law also, US Federal law licenses are designated as 'contracts'.
A French 'license' is a particular type of contract, mostly addressing
trademarks and software.
However in the Common Deed, we plan to use the word 'license', as it is
widely used, even if the correct legal term is 'contract'.

He says Common Deed, but I have seen it in other places as Common Law. I was thinking there was a difference in license, and contract until I actually read section three in the LGPL license. Which the legal term for license stated: a license is a form of a grant of a right or rights of intellectual property to someone. I was figuring that the LGPL was a contract and a license of such, but that assumption made a idiot out of me.

Also interesting is certain places in the U.S. I think or at least for certain in other countries may view a license falling under just copyright law instead contract law and copyright law which is really weird since I suppose any clause or terms in the license become void and only the grant of rights maybe.