| |||||||||||||
DRI, BSD, and LinuxDRI, BSD, and LinuxPosted Sep 3, 2008 9:26 UTC (Wed) by sylware (guest, #35259)In reply to: DRI, BSD, and Linux by regala Parent article: DRI, BSD, and Linux
I wanted to provide Linux GPL code and because of that, my help was refused. There is nothing more to add.
(Log in to post comments)
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 3, 2008 10:15 UTC (Wed) by regala (subscriber, #15745) [Link]
well, do not provide Linux GPL code to a project not compatible by license, even FSF advocates would tell you that. Do not take legal issues personnally, that's useless.
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 3, 2008 10:19 UTC (Wed) by regala (subscriber, #15745) [Link]
> do not provide Linux GPL code to a project not compatible by license
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)
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 15, 2008 12:27 UTC (Mon) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]
> Because it would be legally difficult (because of all contributors have
> to agree upon relicensing)
As relicensing from BSD to GPL only places additional restrictions on the
Of course the point remains that contributors happy with their project
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 15, 2008 16:25 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
however, these same people apparently have no problem with their code being taken and put under a proprietary license.
if they don't like the code being put under a sub-optimal license they should pick a icense that prohibits it.
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Oct 5, 2008 16:13 UTC (Sun) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]
You are right. It's the hypocrite part of the BSD community... they hate GPL but love proprietary. BSD and GPL really define different open source development models. The BSD seems to push for sub-optimal open source version compared to proprietary forks(cf darwin/macos). I think that's what RMS saw a few decades ago and that's why he designed the GPL:to make the open source version THE optimal version of a software.
Nevertheless, some companies/people successfully work around the GPL protection against making sub-optimal open source version compared to proprietary forks:check out mysql/opensolaris/lzo... That RMS missed: how successful would be a license that's protecting code from its authors themselves? Big buck company can easily buy all significant authors from Linux and make a optimal proprietary fork...
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Nov 14, 2012 8:11 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> It's the hypocrite part of the BSD community... they hate GPL but love proprietary
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
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 4, 2008 9:33 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
You where trying to force your personal license opinions on a project consisting of many individuals who had already agreed on a different choice. Are you truly surprised that the entire project did not decide to throw away their own license choice and shut out a large chunk of their own user base for the sake of one single developer?
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 4, 2008 10:56 UTC (Thu) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]
Hu? Where did you see I was *forcing* people? I used my mouth, not a gun or such. :)
I know, I would refuse BSD like code in my projects as they refused my GPL code. (MIT/public domain is fine since it is allowed to relicense under the GPL). I understand them because I would do the same, period. Then, I'm trying to code on the side of it, but for Linux (no cross kernel bloat) with the Linux GPL. It means I ate the bullet and I'm trying to work around the issue. There are many aspects that can be shared despite the different open source models. For instance GPU hardware programming.
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 5, 2008 9:39 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
My bad, 'force' was too strong a word.
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.
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 6, 2008 7:36 UTC (Sat) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Indeed, Stallman has written in support of the strategic value of using the BSD license in particular circumstances, for example, the Ogg Vorbis tools.
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Sep 14, 2008 11:32 UTC (Sun) by eriwik (guest, #53902) [Link]
"I know, I would refuse BSD like code in my projects as they refused my GPL code. (MIT/public domain is fine since it is allowed to relicense under the GPL)."
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.
DRI, BSD, and Linux Posted Oct 5, 2008 15:43 UTC (Sun) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]
sublicensing is explicit in the MIT license. Then I can fork the code and rebase the lot with the GPL.
I cannot sublicense with a BSD license, namely fork and get rid of the BSD license.
|
|||||||||||||