Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Any comments which pretend otherwise are arrogance and elitism personified. NO ONE knows better than the author what the author wants, and NO ONE else gets a say in it.
The license is strictly the author's business
Posted Feb 20, 2012 21:28 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
I said this is probably bad for free software users.
You're right that the author can do what he likes with his code, but some choices are unfortunate for free software users. I care about free software users, thus my comment.
Posted Feb 20, 2012 23:13 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
Overall, this will reduce the amount of wheel reinvention and fragmentation, so I can't help but think of it as a positive step.
It was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD licences
Posted Feb 21, 2012 11:32 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Posted Feb 21, 2012 15:52 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Posted Feb 21, 2012 16:42 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
The GPL parts say GPL, and the BSD parts stay BSD. Distributors have to comply with both sets of requirements.
10 more paragraphs could be added about the details, but the licences are 100% compatible.
(This will probably be my last post in this thread. I should get back to working on http://en.swpat.org )
Posted Feb 21, 2012 20:26 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Posted Feb 22, 2012 12:44 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
Technically, anyone who wants to build on top of the combination can use whichever GPL-compatible licence they like and wait for someone else to replace the GPL-licensed part under a licence they prefer. Usage of the GPL merely invites people to undertake a common activity within a framework that seeks to uphold specific properties of the resulting work.
There are all sorts of reasons why a project might switch to using more or less permissive licences - they may indicate a change in the way the interests of different groups of people are prioritised by the developers - but given the potential effects of such changes on end-users, I don't see anything wrong in voicing end-user concerns about it.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds