Re: [v3] Re: libstdc++ license

[Nathan Myers <ncm at nospam dot cantrip dot org>]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 03:02:40PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > > > Many of the files were already under SGI's and HP's copyright.  Can't
> > > > change those.
> > > 
> > > Well, we can.  The HP/SGI license does not preclude us from putting our
> > > modified versions under the GPL any more than it precludes people from
> > > using the STL in non-free code.
> 
> ben writes:
> 
> > I had no idea. So, what should be done? If possible, it would be nice to
> > have the library under one license. Would the STL bits then be both BSD
> > and Runtime GPL'd? I'm confused.
> 
> The STL license isn't "BSD" exactly, but it's non-copyleft.  Yes,
> extensions could be GPLed.  But RMS has said that this is against FSF
> policy (to GPL changes to a non-copyleft piece of software that is also
> extended by others) because it causes a fork; that is, he'd rather
> cooperate with non-copyleft developers when working on existing code.

Two points.  First, to clarify further, it is the changes and additions
that are GPL'd, not the original text.  The original text is still
covered by the old license, and the aggregate is covered by both.  
All the restrictions in both licenses apply except where somebody 
surgically extracts an unaltered fragment; then only the original
license restrictions apply to the fragment.

The second point is that since the code has already been forked,
there is no reason not to add the (modified) GPL to them in this 
case.  Of course, they have already been released under the previous
license, so it seems the GPL would only apply to 3.1 changes. 

Normally it's rude to change the license on patches because people
thought they were sending patches to a program under one license,
and then the product gets released under another license.  Again,
that doesn't apply here, given FSF assignments.

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org