Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 5, 2007 18:10 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (subscriber, #774)
In reply to: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right by proski
Parent article: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

> The "major part" would consist of drivers for some hardware

Why? Do you say that if, hypothetically, the entire BSD tree becomes compatible with GPL, there is nothing worth to be used in the Linux kernel except an occasional hardware driver here and there?

to post comments

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 6, 2007 1:00 UTC (Thu) by proski (guest, #104) [Link]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's just not worth the trouble to replace any deep Linux internals with the BSD code, even if the BSD code is better. Even in the case of drivers it's only the code dealing with the hardware that is going to be shared.

Actually, I think that the drivers are more likely to be dual licensed because it's unlikely that they will be closed sourced. What company would need to close source of the Atheros driver? On the other hand, more generic code will likely stay under GPL only because the risk of closing it would be higher if it were dual-licensed.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 7, 2007 17:29 UTC (Fri) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

The entire BSD tree is already compatible with the GPL. Licensing isn't the issue in BSD -> Linux code migration. Earlier on, the point was to try to craft something new and make it work well. Later on, Linux was sufficiently diverged from BSD that the amount of code that could be made common was limited. This divergence only increases with time.