Skip to main content

I've seen discussion of #gpl / #copyleft versus #bsd licences in the context of proprietary relicencing recently but unless I’m misunderstanding something it seems like a red herring.

Copyleft is meant to ensure that non-copyright-holders only gain rights if they comply with certain conditions. But the relicencing problem is about the behaviour of the copyright holder.

In either case, the owner can relicence the software as they see fit; and in either case, previous versions remain available.

#bsd #copyleft #gpl
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to ben

modulux
modulux
• •
I'd say the difference regarding relicensing is for collective works. In this case a BSD work can be appropriated for the future, but not a GPL work. Of course if there's copyright assignment or such this doesn't come into play.
in reply to modulux

ben
ben
• •
@modulux My understanding is that in either case all previous versions remain available under their original licence. A BSD licence won't prevent a proprietary derivative work, of course; but the high-profile cases I'm thinking of have been ones where the copyright owner themselves has the ability simply to change the licence anyway, which GPL won't protect against.
@modulux
in reply to ben

modulux
modulux
• •
Yes, that's right. Neither BSD nor GPL are revocable. So previous versions remain under the same licence, as long as someone still has the source code around.
⇧