From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jan 18 16:27:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10252 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:27:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA10242 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:27:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA23366; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:27:19 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA45525; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:27:19 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:27:18 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Jacques Vidrine Cc: Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Why GPLing BSD-license code spells trouble Message-ID: <19990119012718.C42642@bitbox.follo.net> References: <4.1.19990118133648.064c47f0@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118114510.0475fa90@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118095621.04517460@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118092136.0465ede0@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118092136.0465ede0@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118095621.04517460@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118114510.0475fa90@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118133648.064c47f0@mail.lariat.org> <4.1.19990118140907.0628fef0@mail.lariat.org> <199901182145.PAA02239@spawn.nectar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199901182145.PAA02239@spawn.nectar.com>; from Jacques Vidrine on Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:45:18PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:45:18PM -0600, Jacques Vidrine wrote: > On 18 January 1999 at 14:13, Brett Glass wrote: > > Not directly. However, it is also true that a compilation including > > BSD code is being released under the GPL. > > Fair enough. Might I suggest that you start a thread regarding > why this is bad, and what arguments one should use to discourage > it? I'm enough annoyed by this practice that I'll let the cat out of the bag (note that this makes the Linux kernel non-reproducible): It is bad because the result is only re-distributable in source form - no binaries allowed. I'm slightly doubting as to whether source code is allowed, either, but finding out would require more careful review. You can infer from GPL section 6/8, GPL section 3 (with attention to subclause b), and the BSD license clause 2. I'm not reproducing the relevant parts here, due to the extreme amount of rambling in the GPL. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message