Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 15:46 UTC, submitted by anonymous
OpenBSD project creator Theo de Raadt detailed his concerns regarding BSD-licensed code and Dual-BSD/GPL-licensed code being re-licensed under only the GPL (as previously discussed): "Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to... Break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact." Regarding the concern that the BSD license allows companies to steal code, Theo reflected: "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope - the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out."
Permalink for comment 268076
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-11-29
It's probably a waste of my time to write this, and I haven't read through all the comments (give me a break, I just worked 12hrs straight, and I've got better things to do than read squabbling), so this might have already been said, but:
My interpretation was that the dual licensed code was more on a per-file basis. Some files might be covered by x_license, and other files by y_license.
So, if you want to mangle with x_file you adhere to x_license, and if you mangle y_file you adhere to y_license. Does this make sense? I don't think I have to connect the dots any further.
If you're stripping copyrights off files then that's wrong (as defined by the law), and Theo is not an ass**** for pointing this out. He has a valid point about the hypocrisy of certain GPL supporters.