Homebrews and licensing

[Ben_Larson]

Doing that would force the ROM source to be released under the GPL as well. This actually happened with an old Windows port of Stella; CyberStella. The author includes ROM data as header files in Stella, but wanted to keep copyright of the ROMs. That couldn't be done, and the release had to be pulled. If you include any data into a GPL app at compile-time, it automatically becomes GPL as well.

 

No that would just mean you're in violation of the copyright agreement set forth in the GPL for the original GPLed software.

 

Otherwise I could "accidentally" include Microsoft Windows in a GPL project and *boom* - free Windows for everyone. Right?

Edited February 2, 2011 by Ben_Larson

[+stephena]

Doing that would force the ROM source to be released under the GPL as well. This actually happened with an old Windows port of Stella; CyberStella. The author includes ROM data as header files in Stella, but wanted to keep copyright of the ROMs. That couldn't be done, and the release had to be pulled. If you include any data into a GPL app at compile-time, it automatically becomes GPL as well.

 

No that would just mean you're in violation of the copyright agreement set forth in the GPL for the original GPLed software.

 

Otherwise I could "accidentally" include Microsoft Windows in a GPL project and *boom* - free Windows for everyone. Right?

That's not exactly what I said. I was implying that if you include code into a GPL project, you must acknowledge that the code you add will take on the same license as the codebase itself (ie, it is subsumed by the GPL). Obviously if you make a mistake and don't want to release your code as GPL, then the release should be pulled. This is exactly what happened with CyberStella, as I described above.

 

So let's restate this. Instead of "If you include any data into a GPL app at compile-time, it automatically becomes GPL as well." it's:

 

If you include any data into a GPL app at compile-time, you acknowledge that to legally release the project, the new code becomes becomes GPL as well. If you don't agree with this (ie, you don't want to relicense the code), then you can't include it in a GPL'ed codebase. If a release is mistakenly done under these circumstances, it doesn't mean that your code has automatically been GPL'ed. It does mean you have one of several options: (a) release your new code under the GPL, (b) acknowledge that a mistake has been made and the release is null and void and pull it, or © possibly fight it out in court.

 

BTW, this is why I hate licensing and legal issues. What could be expressed in one line of code takes paragraphs in (non-precise) English.