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 275396
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-03-12
"Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.
Code contributions made under the GPL license benefits the GPL project only."
...you forgot one main point if code is incorporated into GPL licensed code, the original BSD is still available. In fact the BSD users can still get the GPL freedoms from the code, benefits not granted under the very same code tied up into a binary product, and these are things helpful to BSD projects. The second point that cannot be understated as why BSD users shouldn't force there morals on GPL coders as opposed to binary coders. Especially if your asking them to forgo copyleft part of the license they have chosen GPL for.
Developers who use code in a binary product benefits themselves. Why should GPL coders compromise their morals to have them abused by others. The very thing you are objecting to.
You have to think that if the argument is going to be on moral grounds those who complain clearly need a license that say enforces this sharing say...GPL. The irony is clearly lost on you.