Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:03:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: FreeBSD User Questions List <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BSD license question Message-ID: <20010810110222.B33946-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <004001c1215d$e48e7120$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The project is not complete. We lack persistent directory/file IDs. This is a big limitation when working with Macintosh aliases. Rumor has it, Samba would have contributed their locking code to the project had it been GPL'd. I guess time will tell if this move is a good idea. Joe Clarke On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > It could also be possible that netatalk is "complete" and further > development on it is putting icing on the frosting on the cake, > so this rush of development won't materialize. > > I guess my question is, if you set out to write a program and you > manage to complete it and it does what you want it to do - doesen't > that mean the project is finished? > > Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com > Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide > Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Joe Clarke [mailto:marcus@marcuscom.com] > >Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:53 PM > >To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >Cc: FreeBSD User Questions List > >Subject: RE: BSD license question > > > > > >Thanks, Ted. This is what I thought, and what I understand. However, due > >to the incompatability (i.e. embrace and extend), the project will > >probably be relicensed entirely. It's a shame really, but the dev team > >thinks that once things go GPL, there will be a rush of developer effort > >put forth that will give the project new life. I guess we'll see. > > > >Thanks to all that responded. > > > >Joe Clarke > > > >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> You really should read the BSD license - it is very simple and easy > >> to understand. Much more so than GPL if I say so myself. > >> > >> The BSD License does allow you to take source and binary and relicense > >> it under whatever more restrictive license you wish. Of course, the > >> original code still remains out there under the BSD license - just because > >> a later variant is under GPL does not invalidate the original BSD > >> distribution. > >> > >> The $64 catch, though, is that you CANNOT delete the original BSD > >> license from the GPL-licensed result. > >> > >> So the end result is that the GPL program will be under GPL but it > >> will still contain a copy of the BSD license. So, anyone reading it > >> that has a little better than oatmeal for brains will see that in there > >> and realize that the code originated from a BSD distribution. If that > >> person has something against the GPL they will no doubt go back to > >> the original BSD distribution and work on that, instead of the > >> "contaminated" GPLized distribution. In fact they might just take the > >> original BSD distribution and diff it against the GPL distribution, and > >> prepare a set of patches that are "contaminated" GPL code, which can > >> then be applied to the BSD distribution to create the GPL result. > >> > >> Ultimately, putting it under GPL will NOT in this case accomplish > >the goal of > >> the GPL - which is to prevent corporations and > >> others from making proprietary modifications. Those entities will still be > >> able to make modifications to the BSD distribution. The end result is > >> you have simply split the distribution into 2 separate distributions - one > >> GPL and one BSD - and these can further and further diverge from > >each other. > >> > >> However, it would seem to me that the _polite_ thing to do would be for > >> the developers of netatalk who have a bug up their butt about GPL could > >> simply write their stuff as a source file that's under GPL, and leave > >> the licensing of the rest of the source files alone. I understand > >of course > >> that due to the Embrace and Extend nature of GPL that the entire finished > >> product would fall under GPL - but at any time in the future it > >would make it > >> easy for a BSD person to rewrite the GPLized modules and put them into the > >> ORIGINAL BSD distribution of netatalk, if they felt the need to have a > >> BSD-licensed version of netatalk. Of course, politeness rarely occurs to > >> zealots. > >> > >> > >> Ted Mittelstaedt > >tedm@toybox.placo.com > >> Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate > >Networker's Guide > >> Book website: > >http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com > >> > >> > >> >-----Original > >Message----- > >> >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > >> >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Joe Clarke > >> >Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:47 AM > >> >To: FreeBSD User Questions List > >> >Subject: OT: BSD license question > >> > > >> > > >> >I realize this is off-topic, but please help me out here. I'm a netatalk > >> >developer. Netatalk is currently BSD-licensed code. There is a thread > >> >on the developers list to change netatalk from BSD to GPL. Is this legal? > >> >Can someone arbitrarily change the license of a project if they're not the > >> >author? I don't think so. Seems to me Microsoft would have taken Linux, > >> >said it's now BSD licensed, and used it in Windows XP ( ;-) ). Thanks for > >> >some clarification. > >> > > >> >Joe Clarke > >> > > >> > > >> >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > >> >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010810110222.B33946-100000>