Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Mar 2006 17:43 UTC, submitted by HeLfReZ

Thread beginning with comment 102873
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: sorry but there are no NEW "bits"
by dumbkiwi on Thu 9th Mar 2006 22:46
in reply to "RE[3]: sorry but there are no NEW "bits""
RE[5]: sorry but there are no NEW "bits"
by dr_gonzo on Thu 9th Mar 2006 23:44
in reply to "RE[4]: sorry but there are no NEW "bits""
Member since:
2005-07-13
You make great points but I'm a little confused by your saying that they're great for "Keeping them [novell's projects] GPL." What do you mean? I was under the impression that once something is GPL licensed it can never be placed under any other license again.
If you could simply "close the source" (that is change the license mid stream) on something we'd call it BSD. GPL != BSD, and that's why the GPL exists.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...
No, if they obtained the copyrights for the software when they acquired Ximian (for example), they can simply re-release the software with any modifications or improvements under a closed license. The GPL would prevent non-copyright holders from doing the same thing, and it would ensure that the pre-closed source remains available with a GPL license.
Generally speaking, closing source is frowned upon but it's not unprecedented.
BSD would allow anyone to take the code and change the license.