Discussion continues on the Linux Kernel mailing list about the legality and morality of re-licensing BSD/GPL dual-licensed code under only the GPL. Alan Cox replied to Theo de Raadt's comments suggesting he was encouraging people to break the law, "re-read my email and then apologize. I do question the .h files where they are BSD licence and no changes were made to the work. I also point out that the dual licence on that code appears to give permission to distribute under one of those licences by choice." In response to Theo's request that code be shared both ways rather than converted to a sole GPL, "that's about the first thing I would agree on - its somewhat rude and not something I personally would usually choose to do."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Ok, I will find just one post:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18528&comment_id=266572
And within this very thread, the post by tombatossals implies the same.
Look, clearly I was being facetious when I said "every third post." The point is that here on OSNews, and on Slashdot, and other places, there are still many people who wrongly believe that the GPL is a Free Software license and the BSD is not. And that is a misconception that is quite unfortunate.
Member since:2005-10-02
Aaahh... yes. There seems to be some confusion.
The BSD is open source and free software. But it is not a strong copyleft. It is a weak copyleft, but none-the-less still free software.
Seems some persons cannot see the difference between free software and copyleft. GPL is strong copyleft, BSD is weak copyleft - but both are free software licenses.
Oh well, it gives us the chance to keep correcting them. Like shoveling snow when it keeps snowing...
Member since:
2005-10-02
Nobody is claiming that the BSD license isn't a free software license. It very much is. Just find one post that claims BSD isn't a free license.