Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

[Unruh]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>Nick Kew wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
>> 
>> Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
>> 
>> The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
>> Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror.  Which is KDE,
>> which is GPL.  So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>> under a BSD license, or so it would appear.
>> 
>> Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks
>> for their use of the code in Safari.  Did those terms include
>> permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms?
>> If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on
>> this particular software.

><chuckles> 

>Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your 

And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
Comparison test) apply here?

>GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.

You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws?
"Derived work" is a term used there.

Whether or not Nokia's browser is a derived work of Konqueror is of course
something that would have to be determined, but the causal relationship at
least makes a prima facia case for the possibility. 

Note that if the claims are correct, then the GPL suffered way back when
when Apple made the closed source. And note that GPL is a license from teh
originator, and the originator has the right to license under whatever
terms he/she/they desires. That K licenses to A and then to N has no impact
whatsoever on K licensing to G under different terms. N's actions with
respect to G's license are irrelevant. 
The owner of the copyright is allowed to make any end runs they desire
around the GPL.