Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:38:17 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, James Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu>, Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite Message-ID: <199908141738.KAA07270@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:28:30 PDT." <199908141728.KAA03154@lestat.nas.nasa.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700 > Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> wrote: > > > > So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone > > > would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion. > > > > It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's > > no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to > > recover post-viral changes and reuse them in their own XFS product. > > No, that's not true. The GPL cannot *replace* a license that is on a > piece of code. If people modify a piece of BSD-licensed software, they > are doing so in accordance to the BSD-style license on that code. > > What the GPL does is require that full source for the program be included > with the program, and that full source, in my example, would include > a BSD-licensed XFS module. It also requires that the GPL be attached to that additional source component. Go back and read section 3 of the GPL again. We've had this discussion before. -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908141738.KAA07270>