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
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.