[s1mp3-dev] Licensing - (L)GPL x FreeBSD was : loadram -- USB subroutine upload program

[Jeroen Domburg]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Correct.  That is *YOU* enforcing *YOUR* rights.  However, you need to
> look at it from the other side of the fence.  What happens if Actions
> gets clever and finds some bit of *THEIR* code that we've linked in,
> that we've copied, etc.  They are within their rights to say that
> because that code is linked in, and that code cannot be distributed
> under the GPL, we can't distribute our binary code under the GPL
> either.  The last thing we want to have to defend is a clause in our
> own license that says one can't distribute it if we can't comply with
> the other terms of the license...

Now I want to know for sure. Do you have sources stating that? I couldn't 
find any. If you don't want to clobber the list, send them to me privately 
please.

Even if I'm right, we're screwed in that case anyway: Action can then just 
ignore the complete GPL issue, true or not, and sue us because we're using 
*their* code or binaries without *their* permission. Do we have a license 
explicitly stating we can use parts of their firmware? No? Then they can 
sue us because we're distributing their code without their permission. 
That's why we'll have to write everything from scratch anyway, so we're 
free to pick our license anyway.

> The risk when producing open source software is that someone,
> somewhere will use the software in a way you didn't intend and don't
> like.  There's no silver bullet to prevent this from happening.  The
> GPL won't prevent the CIA from using your software to torture people,
> or to kill innocent children in some war.

True. That's not a reason to do nothing about it, though: I don't leave my 
house completely unlocked just because there's a chance someone breaks in 
with a bulldozer.

Jeroen