Hi there, On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: ...The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free" as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free", no matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD code. /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make the code "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not "free" code as such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a matter of perspective. You don't have to accept GPL contributions to your own codebase if you want to dual license. Their code contributions, your choice. As easy as that. It's all about respect. Respect their copyright or drop it. Easy, simple, fair. In fact, GPL projects offer more incentives of contributing that BSD projects. Someone wanting to contribute to a BSD project has to give up all control of their contribution. Not everybody is willing to follow down that road. The GPL at least makes sure that nobody can legally exploit a contribution without making it available to the users so that they can profit too. This is a much more valuable incentive to participate. If you /really/ want to include GPL contributions in your codebase in dual licensing schemes, you'll have to ask for permission of the copyright owner of that contribution. This is the most natural thing in the world. This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!" cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD contributor who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by redistributing GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS repository. It's amazing how a community that should actually take a defensive position in a matter like this switches into attack mode and makes the violated party the culprit. The majority of the posts in this discussion, be it on undeadly, some other mailing list or here on [misc], reflect the mental pattern of six-year olds who cannot argue reasonably. I really have to admit that if these people represent the majority of the OpenBSD community, I am disgusted and most of all disappointed. But of course, it just may be so that decent people choose not to take part in these threads at all. regards, Tobias
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Tim Tassonis | reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default |
git: | |
| Alex Riesen | Re: question about git-submodule |
| Greg KH | Re: [ANNOUNCE] pg - A patch porcelain for GIT |
| Nicolas Pitre | Re: git-index-pack really does suck.. |
| Bill Lear | Meaning of "fatal: protocol error: bad line length character"? |
| GVG GVG | ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host |
| Matt | Setting up a virtual hosting machine w. SSH/SFTP accounts - pitfalls/experiences? |
| Marco Peereboom | Re: Real men don't attack straw men |
| bsd_news | LC_COLLATE and PostgreSQL |
| Eric Sandeen | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| John Stoffel | Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three |
| Al Boldi | Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck |
| Alex Zarochentsev | Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 |
