To: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@...>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...>, Can E. Acar <can.acar@...>, <misc@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...>, Eben Moglen <moglen@...>, Lawrence Lessig <lessig_from_web@...>, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...>, Matt Norwood <norwood@...>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and
I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are*
putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications ---
which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do
(modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution
which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of
using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL
sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their
proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a
GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still
allows you to see the source.
So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code
and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't
use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the
difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary
license is better?
- Ted
-
