[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: L4-hurd discuss
From: |
Neil Santos |
Subject: |
Re: L4-hurd discuss |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:08:11 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On 13:02 26/06/05, Daniel Martin wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 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?
*sigh*
Read the whole thread again. The whole OpenSolaris thing had a lot of
strings attached. And I did say (say quoted paragraph) that I don't
want to use free-but-not-copyleft licenses for *my* projects, but
would use---and contribute, if I could and I had the
inclination---like-licensed softwares.
> 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
There *is* no problem doing that, but only so long as you hold the
copyrights to each and every part of the software (somebody please
correct me if I'm wrong).
> 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.
And I can't imagine the FSF allowing GNU projects to be released under
the BSD. Please check your information: I'm willing to bet that the
kernel's BSD-licensed, but the majority are (L)GPL-licensed.
> > 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! :-)
Free-but-not-copyleft licenses allow me to share with everyone,
including those who don't want to share. On the other hand, copyleft
licenses allow me to share code only with those whom I know would be
willing to share in return.
--
address@hidden If we're good enough to choose our governors, doesn't
Freedom: Too high a price that mean we're good enough to govern ourselves?
pgpAei1V4a6sG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, (continued)
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Neil Santos, 2005/06/25
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Benno, 2005/06/25
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Neil Santos, 2005/06/25
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Daniel Martin, 2005/06/26
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, David Leimbach, 2005/06/26
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/06/26
- Re: L4-hurd discuss,
Neil Santos <=
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/06/27
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Leonardo Pereira, 2005/06/27
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, David Leimbach, 2005/06/28
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Leonardo Pereira, 2005/06/28
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Francisco Andrades, 2005/06/28
- Re: L4-hurd discuss, Leonardo Pereira, 2005/06/28
Re: L4-hurd discuss, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/06/25