Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 15:46 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Law and Order 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."
Thread beginning with comment 267925
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: He's wrong
by Luis on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: He's wrong"
Luis
Member since:
2006-04-28

Incorrect. It is possible to distribute a file under the combination of two or more licenses.

If by combination you mean actually merging two licenses under one, then yes, you can. But this is not the case. And it couldn't be.

This is possible ONLY when the licenses are compatible. The revised BSD-license is compatible with GPL.

BSD is compatible with GPL meaning that by complying with the GPL you are also complying with the BSD license. However, note that if you comply with the BSD you are not necessarily complying with the GPL, and so it is not possible to dual-license in the way you mention.

As I said, if what you say is correct, then OpenBSD would be an illegal project for distributing GPL'ed code without complying with it. It's not the case, anyway, since they distribute that code under the BSD license *exclusively*.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3