Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:08 UTC, submitted by RJ
GNU, GPL, Open Source "We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."
Permalink for comment 202250
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
manmist
Member since:
2005-12-18

"Call it whatever you want. If you take BSD code and put it under the GPL, you will have GPL-code afterward"

So,Name calling is ok. A license can be called a Cannibal for BSD folks I suppose and no you dont have change your BSD code to GPL just because you mingle some GPL code with it. Learn how licensing works properly.

"But you don't have to use it, try this with the Linux kernel. Period! "

What are you talking about? Linux folks have no problem using BSD code. It's people like Theo who refuse to even use Apache2 and call it a non-free license.

"Yes the majority is GPL software, but from the beginning? "

What beginning are we talking about?

"And can of course build a usuable system without GPL software - to compile it I have to use GCC."

Hmm. So you need GCC to build a usable system which is under GPL. Your claim is self contradictory.

"This is no war against GPL software, I'am using it too - but don't spread such a nonsense because of your very own horizon."

Explain why Theo refuses to use GPL'ed or even Apache licensed code under OpenBSD if there is no war. Calling things nonsense just because you disagree is a poor way to make your point.

Reply Parent Score: 1