Re: tuntitko

[Johann D. <jo...@Do...>]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Jakob Eriksson wrote:

> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > 
> > > > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it could be
> > > > merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> > > 
> > > right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86 should to be 
> > > licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it is possible.  So I'm 
> > > accordly to use an XFree license.
> > > 
> > > Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in any case ?
> > 
> > Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
> > don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add GPL'd
> > code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86 as a whole.
> 
> X11 licensed code can be integrated into GPL code.
> Not the other way, then "the product as a whole" becomes GPL,
> and the XFree86 people don't want that...

Here comes another legal mystery (to my eyes, at least).
How do you tell what code you incorporate into what code ?
Of course, if we make a kind of XFree86-with-input-patch, it may seem that
we incorporated some GPL code into some XFree86 code, but this is purely a
view of mind. We could see it this way, too:
"We have some piece of userland-code over the input drivers (under GPL). I
would like to have a graphical interface, too. Hmm, how are we going to
fill in the holes ? Hey, there is this soft, XFree86, which license says
we can do what we want with the code. Let's take it !".
And now we have incorporated XFree86 code into GPL code. Quite a twisted
way of seeing things, but I do not see why it would not be valid.


> 
> X11 is very permitting, says basically; "do what you want.
> We are not responsible for what happens."
> 
> 
> Jakob
> 

-- 
Johann Deneux