"Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list account)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
> There was a debacle a few years back where BSD sources were stolen,
> the BSD licenses stripped and the GPL license put in its place. Not
> sure you could call that successful or not, but it did cause quite a
> stir.
You mean the Atheros wireless drivers? (See http://xrl.us/o3fys)
The SFLC contacted everyone who contributed to the Linux drivers and got
agreement that the drivers would be dual-licensed.
It seems (since all contributors agreed to dual-license) that there
wasn't so much an intention to steal code from OpenBSD as there was
ignorance of OpenBSD's concerns.
>> And you still haven't explained why you think I should not have the
>> right to license my own software under the GPL.
>
> Never said that. What I did say is the viral nature of the GPL is
> what I take exception to. "Freedom" that is forced is not freedom.
Fine, lets not say you have “Freedom” under the GPL.
Instead, how about this:
Software covered by the GPL permits you to gain access to the source
code for the software.
Of course, there is more:
If you agree to distribute the source code to any modifications you
make, the GPL allows you to distribute modified versions of the
software.
Where in this agreement was anyone “forced” to do anything? The person
modifying the software *gained* the ability to modify the software when
they agreed to distribute the source to their modifications. They did
not have that right before.
Mark.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/14/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST