Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:43:38 +0100 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Message-ID: <20001204144337.B13990@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <200012031939.MAA29429@usr05.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 07:39:17PM %2B0000 References: <20001201134530.H61418@lpt.ens.fr> <200012031939.MAA29429@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said on Dec 3, 2000 at 19:39:17:
> > > I also see it as being problematic for things like Linux,
> > > which unlike the FSF tools, accept contributions without
> > > having to have the rights granted to a single legal
> > > entity. The problem with that has always been that any
> > > author could claim version differences for their code
> > > contributed to the project.
> >
> > In the linux case, Linus could always refuse to accept patches
> > not contributed under GPL v2.
>
> I really doubt that the code is audited that closely, on the
> assumption that the contributions in the form of patches are
> a derivative work, and thus tmust themselves be GPL'ed. The
> problem with this is that if I made my patches against a pre
> modified license kernel, and they were incorporated, Linus
> can not really legally change the license without violating
> my copyright. For the code I've personally contributed, I
> have no problem with giving him the rights to do this, but
> realize that this is a place where political differences are
> fairly prominent within the GPL community itself (I don't
> count myself as a member, though I've contributed code to a
> dozen or more GPL'ed projects).
I guess you're right that there is a problem in principle.
In practice, I doubt anyone would end up suing Linus over such
a thing, the worst that may happen is backing out the GPLv3 patches
after they "came to light." Much worse license problems (like KDE)
have been sorted out peacefully. However, if Brett wants to do to
linux what he always claims the GPL folks are trying to do to BSD,
I guess this is a possibility for him...
As for these conspiracy theories about the GPL crowd, Perens is loud
but not really so credible; the only one who counts eventually is
Stallman, and I don't believe he is really anti-BSD. I have
corresponded with him a couple of times, and he seemed to have a high
regard for the BSDs, though they aren't "his" projects. I've heard
the same from people who've met him. Also take a look at
http://www.LinuxMedNews.org/linuxmednews/974769856/index_html
where the original article said
"There are other licenses that have different restrictions,
particularly with regard to commercial use of software such as the
FreeBSD License. The Free Software Foundation does not consider
these licenses to be 'Free' licenses."
and he answers,
"Actually we do consider them free licenses. Both the original BSD
license, and the revised one preferred by the FreeBSD developers (and
adopted by Berkeley a couple of years ago) qualify as free software
licenses, like the X11 license. We have used code available under
these licenses as part of the GNU system since the 1980s."
This is not the main subject of the article and he did not really have
to correct this statement, but he does anyway.
R
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001204144337.B13990>