> Wrong; the GPL requires any derivative works to be under a compatible license. If I copy GPL-licensed code into my BSD-licensed library, none of my code has to be relicensed.
Wrong. You can copy BSD-licensed code into your GPL-licensed library with no problem, but GPL-licensed code copied to a BSD-licensed library will have problems. GPL-licensed code into a BSD-licensed library prohibits redistributing the resulting work under BSD.
> Completely and egregiously wrong. Unless these programs are actually copying parts of the kernel into their source, they are not derived works.
You've missed the point. If the Google de-copyrightizanator (WTF! Apple's spell check did not flag de-copyrightizanator!) has failed, and the header files Google shipped for third parties to use do in fact contain copyrighted code under GPL, then there may indeed be a problem for third parties. Headers files often contain more than just the specification of an interface (which is probably not copyrightable). They often contain actual code, which is copyrightable. That code could end up in applications, in which case they would in fact have a serious GPL problem.
Wrong. You can copy BSD-licensed code into your GPL-licensed library with no problem, but GPL-licensed code copied to a BSD-licensed library will have problems. GPL-licensed code into a BSD-licensed library prohibits redistributing the resulting work under BSD.
You say "wrong", but then argued something completely different from what I claimed.
I said: "If I copy GPL-licensed code into my BSD-licensed library, none of my code has to be relicensed."
You replied: "GPL-licensed code into a BSD-licensed library prohibits redistributing the resulting work under BSD."
These statements are regarding completely separate concepts.
You were responding to a statement that GPL requires derivative works to be available on the same terms. Since GPL is a distribution license, I assumed you were talking about distribution.
If you copy GPL code into your BSD library, and then distribute the resulting library, you MUST distribute that version of the library under GPL. You can continue to make the version that does not contain any GPL code available under BSD if you wish.
If you copy GPL code into your BSD library and do not distribute it, then GPL is irrelevant.
Remember that the license is a property of the code, not the tarball.
If you copy code from one library into another, then the combined work uses both licenses, but the code retains its original licenses.
Using the example of copying GPL code into a BSD library, the entire library (and any tarballs, binaries, etc) are covered by both licenses, but my code (the BSD code) stays BSD. It's not relicensed.
> Remember that the license is a property of the code, not the tarball.
Not really. A license is an agreement between the copyright owner and whoever is seeking permission to do something that falls under one of the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the owner of the copyright.
Comments
> Wrong; the GPL requires any derivative works to be under a compatible license. If I copy GPL-licensed code into my BSD-licensed library, none of my code has to be relicensed.
Wrong. You can copy BSD-licensed code into your GPL-licensed library with no problem, but GPL-licensed code copied to a BSD-licensed library will have problems. GPL-licensed code into a BSD-licensed library prohibits redistributing the resulting work under BSD.
> Completely and egregiously wrong. Unless these programs are actually copying parts of the kernel into their source, they are not derived works.
You've missed the point. If the Google de-copyrightizanator (WTF! Apple's spell check did not flag de-copyrightizanator!) has failed, and the header files Google shipped for third parties to use do in fact contain copyrighted code under GPL, then there may indeed be a problem for third parties. Headers files often contain more than just the specification of an interface (which is probably not copyrightable). They often contain actual code, which is copyrightable. That code could end up in applications, in which case they would in fact have a serious GPL problem.
Wrong. You can copy BSD-licensed code into your GPL-licensed library with no problem, but GPL-licensed code copied to a BSD-licensed library will have problems. GPL-licensed code into a BSD-licensed library prohibits redistributing the resulting work under BSD.
You say "wrong", but then argued something completely different from what I claimed.
I said: "If I copy GPL-licensed code into my BSD-licensed library, none of my code has to be relicensed."
You replied: "GPL-licensed code into a BSD-licensed library prohibits redistributing the resulting work under BSD."
These statements are regarding completely separate concepts.
You were responding to a statement that GPL requires derivative works to be available on the same terms. Since GPL is a distribution license, I assumed you were talking about distribution.
If you copy GPL code into your BSD library, and then distribute the resulting library, you MUST distribute that version of the library under GPL. You can continue to make the version that does not contain any GPL code available under BSD if you wish.
If you copy GPL code into your BSD library and do not distribute it, then GPL is irrelevant.
Remember that the license is a property of the code, not the tarball.
If you copy code from one library into another, then the combined work uses both licenses, but the code retains its original licenses.
Using the example of copying GPL code into a BSD library, the entire library (and any tarballs, binaries, etc) are covered by both licenses, but my code (the BSD code) stays BSD. It's not relicensed.
> Remember that the license is a property of the code, not the tarball.
Not really. A license is an agreement between the copyright owner and whoever is seeking permission to do something that falls under one of the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the owner of the copyright.