Re: L4-hurd discuss

[David Leimbach]

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  
> > > licensed
> > > software, not BSD kernel. Or to put it another way to above comment
> > > doesn't mention a problem with a GNU/*BSD system due to technical
> > > problems with the *BSD kernels, but simply due to the fact that  
> > > they are
> > > licensed 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 a
> > problem with the BSD-style licenses (and all other
> > free-but-not-copyleft licenses).  That is, I have a problem with  
> > using
> > a 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't
> see anything wrong as long as the terms of the license are upheld.  
> Just
> as 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't
> imagine them going off and supporting a non-free fork of the  
> kernel. If
> the FreeBSD project suddenly decided to make it non-free then I expect
> they 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, µ-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