From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 14 10:30:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from lestat.nas.nasa.gov (lestat.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.33.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FE714BEF for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from thorpej@lestat.nas.nasa.gov) Received: from lestat (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lestat.nas.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA03154; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199908141728.KAA03154@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> To: Mike Smith Cc: James Howard , Terry Lambert , Mark Tinguely , Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite Reply-To: Jason Thorpe From: Jason Thorpe Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:28:30 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700 Mike Smith wrote: > > So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone > > would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion. > > It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's > no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to > recover post-viral changes and reuse them in their own XFS product. No, that's not true. The GPL cannot *replace* a license that is on a piece of code. If people modify a piece of BSD-licensed software, they are doing so in accordance to the BSD-style license on that code. What the GPL does is require that full source for the program be included with the program, and that full source, in my example, would include a BSD-licensed XFS module. -- Jason R. Thorpe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message