Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Sep 2007 21:32 UTC
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."
Thread beginning with comment 268894
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.
Member since:
2005-10-02
That may look ironic, but it is actually a paradox. That's what you get when you use copyright to protect End User rights
- it can occasionally boggle ones mind.
The copyright in the license is merely in order to protect from almost identical but incompatible licenses. If you replace that copyright with your own, your license would be GPL-incompatible. It's copyrighted because it protects copyleft. It's not just ironic - it's a mystery and a paradox