On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. Some people consider the BSD licence more free since NetApp or Linux or Microsoft can take your code and never gove back. Although I don't agree with it, I can understand the rationale of the latter. But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give back is simply dishonest. Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen? And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Vu Pham | Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Radu Rendec | Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | [PATCH 0/11] ibm_newemac: Candidate patches for 2.6.25 |
