| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Advice on relicensing from the SFLCAdvice on relicensing from the SFLCPosted Sep 5, 2007 16:23 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029)Parent article: Advice on relicensing from the SFLC
Eminently reasonable. Is it too much to hope that the SFLC's advice to the GPL community won't provoke yet another spiteful rant from certain BSD advocates?
(Log in to post comments)
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 5, 2007 18:29 UTC (Wed) by nofutureuk (guest, #3116) [Link] lol, ranting provokes more ranting. did you know? ;-)
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 6, 2007 1:36 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Branden, there was plenty of spiteful ranting in both directions. I suggest that both sides cooperate and keep the core of the driver dual-licensed, so that both communities can contribute to its maintainance.
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 6, 2007 10:58 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] JoeBuck,
While that sounds fine, it seems it could be restated that you suggest that the GPL people give up on their reasons for choosing the GPL as their preferred license in the first place to work along with the BSD folks.
I don't see any easy solution to the problem that doesn't involve one group giving up on their principles. Perhaps it is too early and I am missing something though.
all the best,
drew
http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Advice on relicensing from the SFLC Posted Sep 6, 2007 15:53 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Chances of closed sourcing a reverse engineered driver are miserable, as long as the bulk of the kernel remains under GPL. On the other hand, closer cooperation with the BSD camp can help with the reverse engineering efforts.
|
|
||||||||||||