Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Sep 2007 13:40 UTC, submitted by dylansmrjones
SFLC has released a code analysis of the infamous ath5k driver in Linux. SFLC has also - in the aftermath of the OpenBSD-Team vs. Linux-Team 'License Flame War' - released a paper on what 'copyrightable' means, as well as one on proper usage of non-GPL'ed code in GPL'ed projects. All as part of guidance for developers wishing to use permissive licensed code in GPL'ed projects.
Groklaw naturally also has a take on this.
Thread beginning with comment 275351
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:2006-11-08
Let's see...
I just looked at the recent source code and it STILL has that paragraph:
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
With the following date under it: 2004/01/13
If you didn't like the license-text, then why the hell did you contribute to that??? You must have known that somebody COULD make that code GPL-only.
Member since:2006-12-28
,I THOUGHT A HYPOCRITE, WAS SAY SOMEONE WHO SAY...ADVOCATES THE FREEDOM OF A LICENSE AND THEN WHEN THAT VERY FREEDOM IS UTILIZED, SUDDENLY THIS FREEDOM IS ATTACKED ON MORAL(SIC) GROUNDS. I FEAR AFTER THE ATTACKS ON OTHERS USING OPEN SOURCE LICENSES. ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE COMPANIES WHO LOCK BSD CODE IN "PROPRIETARY" CLOSED SOURCE ARE ATTACKED. AT LEAST GPL ACTUALLY STATES WHAT GPL AUTHORS WANT IN THE LICENSE. COMPANIES WHO USE BSD CODE HAVE THE CHOICE TO *CONTRIBUTE CODE BACK* THAT SAME CHOICE IS GRANTED TO COMPANIES WHO CHOSE TO OPEN SOURCE THEIR CODE UNDER GPL IF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THEN THE LICENSE NEEDS TO SPECIFICALLY STATE SUCH. BTW I SUSPECT THAT ALL THIS IS JUST ANNOYING AUTHORS OF GPL CODE THAT CONTRIBUTE BACK TO BSD CODE, WHEN YOU LABEL THEM HYPOCRITES ETC, OF COURSE YOU ARE ADVOCATING LOCKING THEIR CODE TO YOUR BSD LICENSE DAMMIT...HYPOCITE. AS A SIDE NOTE MOST PEOPLE ARE AMENABLE TO BOTH LICENSES, AND SEE ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF BOTH Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-05-19
It's ok for a closed-source company to re-license BSD code such that they lock their changes to BSD code away forever. That's how the license goes. Why in this case people cried foul when someone re-licensed BSD code in a much more open way is beyond me.
Excuse moa, who said re-license? Heck, even Microsoft got BSDL code under BSDL and nobody is going to re-license it under other so called "commercial" license. And who said that companies does not contribute code back?
GPL is much more open way? YOU LOCKED MY CODE IN YOUR GPL LICENSE DAMMIT... hypocrite...