Re: testing, testing
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 09:57:36PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> # If *this* idea ever takes off, a DebianBSD version
> # wouldn't have these concerns. Pure BSD code would
> # continue its own license; likewise with pure GNU
> # code. Anything that was a combo would carry *both*
> # notifications and would really be GPL'd. Since the
> # Berkeley license seems so open I don't see how it
> # could be violated....but then, I'm not a lawyer.
> I think they would have these concerns unless the GPL'd bits
> are LGPL'd instead. No flamewars please... a bit of clarification
> first. You write X and put it under the BSD license. You can
> link it against LGPL'd code (as a number of FreeBSD programs
> do today). You cannot link X against GPL'd code (the BSD kernel
> and a GPL'd device driver is one example) without first placing
> the BSD bits under the GPL. Though I think it is possible
> to relicense the BSD code under another license, this is
> usually frowned upon because some feel it to be violating the
> license and others feel that it violates the intent of the license.
Good grief, you've almost got to be a Philadelphia
lawyer to sort this out.
Personally, I don't care if relicensing violate the
"intent" of the license. As long as it isn't strictly
illegal, it's legal.
> I can't speak for FreeBSD -core and IANAL, but this is probably
> the biggest reason you don't see GPL'd device drivers in the
> FreeBSD kernel. It is not that FreeBSD doesn't want to use
> them, or thinks they are no good. In fact, some of them are
> very good and would be welcomed with open arms if the "other"
> license didn't make it darn near impossible.
> It would be great if the GPL vs. BSD war didn't exist. There
> are programs scattered everywhere that were written under
> one of these two licenses and since rewritten under the other
> because someone didn't like the first license. The epitome
> of code forks. Split the population along some arbitrary line
> and make each of them reinvent each other's work because of
> religious views over licenses. :(
> But I digress... sorry for the mini rant.
>  The sticking point is usually the advertising clause
> present on most of the BSD kernel bits. This definitely
> doesn't mix well with the GPL.
I've read this; don't entirely understand the clause.
....And again, it may be a sticking point, but if it
isn't a felony or otherwise illegal, I can live with
a grey area.
Another thought is for us to write our own Debian-BSD
Gary D. Kline email@example.com Public service Unix