On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 04:13:09AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
it's not their code that's being discussed. if it was their code, they could do whatever they want with it, including distribute it under both GPL and proprietary licenses.
Scenario divides into two sub-cases: BMW Australia (or parent) are the licensor (owner of the relevant copyright title), or they are not. I've discussed upthread case 1, so let's turn attention to case 2.
when it comes to other people's GPL-licensed code, though, they have no choice. Their only options are to distribute under the terms of the GPL, to negotiate a different license with the author(s)/copyright-holder(s), or not distribute it at all. there is no other option for them.
Actually, a third option is to commit a tort (copyright infringement).
it should have been obvious that by 'only options', I meant 'only non-infringing options'. otherwise you may as well include criminal "options" like murdering the author and their heirs so there's no-one with any standing to complain.
And a fourth alternative is the one where they don't own copyright but have contractual rights from the copyright holder, that permit BMW to do things a copyright holder might otherwise object to.
this is effectively the same as my 2nd option - negotiate a different license with the author.
Consider option #3, commit the tort. OK, who's the copyright holder? This is relevant question because said party is the _only_ entity on the planet with standing to bring litigation over the tort.
And standing matters because, if the tort-feasor knows that the only party with standing doesn't mind, committing the tort might be a very attractive option indeed.
this is precisely why efforts to enforce the GPL are necessary (even if some chattering bystanders think it's being pedantic or overly litigous). it both encourages free software authors to stand up for their copyrights AND discourages infringers from thinking they'll get away with it. the point of copyleft is "once free, always free", for **ALL** users, forever, no matter how far downstream from the original release, with no risk of the software or any contributions to it being buried in proprietary forks. copyleft is worthless if it's unenforced and effectively the same as a non-copyleft license like BSD.
I don't know who that copyright holder might be, but I'm going to strongly guess that it's a frequent business partner of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG that wouldn't actually give a tinker's damn about this (hypothesised) tort on the automobile company's part.
i'd guess it was the linux kernel and/or commonly used linux software (e.g. busybox, or maybe a desktop environment / window manager, there are tens of thousands of infringable programs to choose from) before custom software being supplied to them under the GPL. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>