On 18 Sep 2007, at 15:53, Frederico Muñoz wrote: > I understand the concern, that's why I also raised the issue of the > recent events concerning BSD code in GPL applications (between Theo > and Eben Moglen, amongst others). Depending on the final status of > this it would also mean that the BSD license would not be compatible > with CDDL, amongst others. Until recently the general view was that > you could pretty much use BSDL code in any body of work regardless of > the license, but from what I've been reading this interpretation is no > longer held by important key members of the BSD community (which > doesn't mean they are right, just as Eben Moglen being a lawyer is no > guarantee either).
Hi Frederico, I believe you are misunderstanding the OpenBSD debate. There is no dispute over whether you can use BSDL code in GPL'd projects. The complete work becomes GPL'd and the BSDL components remain BSDL individually. The issue there is over relicensing BSDL code under the GPL. This can only be done with the consent of the original author(s). The controversy began when someone sent a diff to the LKML removing the original author's copyright notice and licenses from the files. This was done because someone believed that Linus would not accept BSDL code into the kernel (no idea why they thought that; there's loads of BSD, MIT and PD code in the Linux kernel already), and so ditched the dual license. It's not completely clear whether changing the license of a dual-licensed piece of code to a single license is allowed, but removing the original copyright notice is definitely not allowed. There is, however, nothing stopping you from using a BSDL component in a GPL'd project[1]. David [1] Note: This does not apply to the original 4-clause BSDL, still used by NetBSD and OpenSSL, which has an advertising clause which is incompatible with the GPL. _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
