🚀 go-pugleaf

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>Unruh wrote:
>[...]
>> Yes, and you have made the comparison? 

>Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.

??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright
protected material contained withing the package. Have you made the
comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC?
  I have no idea what syndrome you think I am suffering from.


>http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
>(SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us)

><quote>

>GPL

>"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to 
>Sontag... 

></quote>

And this quote is supposed to say what? What is its relevance to the
discussion. The question was, is Nokia allowed to release its version with
BSD license given that the original was released under the GPL. 
So two questions-- does the Nokia version contain protected parts of the
original, and did the Nokia version derive from that GPL original. 
(Eg, as the OP said, Nokia's version could contain code which is copyright
protected from the original, but the original authors could have licensed
the code to Nokia under a separate license from the GPL. Thus even if the
code contains protected code from the GPL release, that is irrelevant,
since it did not derive from that GPL licensed version but from another
licensed version.)


>regards,
>alexander.