|
From: | David Leimbach |
Subject: | Re: L4-hurd discuss |
Date: | Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:30:47 -0700 |
On Jun 26, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Daniel Martin wrote:
Hi everyone. On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 01:00 +0800, Neil Santos wrote:On 19:32 25/06/05, Benno wrote:Right, the specific comment seemed to imply a problem with BSD licensedsoftware, not BSD kernel. Or to put it another way to above comment doesn't mention a problem with a GNU/*BSD system due to technicalproblems with the *BSD kernels, but simply due to the fact that they arelicensed under the BSD license. If I mistunderstood the point then I apologise.Okay, this is going to mess things up a bit more, but...I *do* have a problem with BSD-licensed software; or, rather, I have aproblem with the BSD-style licenses (and all otherfree-but-not-copyleft licenses). That is, I have a problem with usinga free-but-not-copyleft license for anything I create, but I *don't* have a problem with using other's softwares. I'll even help with it, if I'm able. Or steal from it, and make the derivative copylefted, if possible. If you think this is not much better (if at all) than what some proprietary developers have done (and are doing), I won't argue. That's just the way I do things.The BSD license is both free and GPL compatible, so surely that makes the BSD kernels a better choice for monolithic kernels that the OpenSolaris one? I see no problem with relicensing BSD works to the GNU GPL. Surely if the BSD authors are prepared to allow their work to be molested in to non-free software then they can't complain when their work is reborn copyleft. The choice was made when they chose the BSD license I don'tsee anything wrong as long as the terms of the license are upheld. Justas I don't see anything wrong when BSD software is made non-free. The authors choose to allow this.
Actually relicensing works under the BSD to GPL may be illegal as you don't
have the copyrights to make that change.The BSD says you can redistribute it however you want, not rewrite the license
if you don't agree with it's terms.I'd seriously consult a lawyer before attempting anything that potentially
violates the originator's wishes.
The GNU/kFreeBSD project is the GNU operating system running on top of FreeBSD's kernel, which is licensed under the BSD license. I can'timagine them going off and supporting a non-free fork of the kernel. Ifthe FreeBSD project suddenly decided to make it non-free then I expectthey would fork the kernel rather than support the new non-free kernel.Of course I expect `GNU' (that operating system Alfred releases from time to time!) will be far nicer when it reaches maturity. (GNU incorporates the official kernel replacement of course, ยต-kernel + the Hurd.)
Unless the Hurd developers don't finish and keep talking about this stuff
instead :).
Like (I think) I've previously said, I'll only share if you'd share, but I won't let anyone else share.You lost me! :-) Best wishes, Daniel. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |