Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
DRI, BSD, and Linux
Posted Sep 3, 2008 10:15 UTC (Wed) by regala (subscriber, #15745)
Posted Sep 3, 2008 10:19 UTC (Wed) by regala (subscriber, #15745)
I think this one came out not quite right. Do not submit code with a license that would imply a GPL relicensing to a project that cares for its licensing. Because it would be legally difficult (because of all contributors have to agree upon relicensing)
sorry if you felt the refusal that way.
Posted Sep 15, 2008 12:27 UTC (Mon) by robbe (guest, #16131)
As relicensing from BSD to GPL only places additional restrictions on the
licensee this can be done without approval from all contributors.
Of course the point remains that contributors happy with their project
being BSD-licensed will probably prefer rejecting your code to moving to
a (from their point of view) suboptimal license.
Posted Sep 15, 2008 16:25 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
if they don't like the code being put under a sub-optimal license they should pick a icense that prohibits it.
Posted Oct 5, 2008 16:13 UTC (Sun) by sylware (guest, #35259)
Posted Nov 14, 2012 8:11 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
GPL is really proprietary... for the public. I guess that's why (some vocal people in...) the BSD community must feel better when only a few companies "steal" their code as opposed to the whole public: that's far less people and easier to pretend you don't know :-D
Posted Sep 4, 2008 9:33 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458)
Posted Sep 4, 2008 10:56 UTC (Thu) by sylware (guest, #35259)
Posted Sep 5, 2008 9:39 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458)
My issue with your original comment was that the tone strongly implied to me that you where surprised, possibly even bitter about the DRM peoples refusal to accept your patches simply because doing so would have forced them to change their license and drop support for the BSDs. This comment makes it clear that this was what you expected all along.
On a side note, I'm surprised about how many people refuse to contribute to projects with the 'wrong licenses'. Sure, I understand that people have strong license opinions, I have them myself, but I will happily contribute to projects under any free software license, even ones that I consider suboptimal. Even GNU seems to take this stance, as they have at sponsored the development of flex, ncurses and various other non-gpled projects.
Posted Sep 6, 2008 7:36 UTC (Sat) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Posted Sep 14, 2008 11:32 UTC (Sun) by eriwik (guest, #53902)
You seem to be under the misconception that the MIT license allows you to freely change the license while the BSD does not. This is not true, the difference between the new BSD and MIT license is the non-endorsement clause (the old BSD license also had the advertisement clause). Neither of them allow you to change the license.
Posted Oct 5, 2008 15:43 UTC (Sun) by sylware (guest, #35259)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds