David Presotto scripsit: > While true, that might be awfully hard to do since the two parts > will not be explicitly delineated. A few generations down the > line and heredity becomes pretty fuzzy. The viral/inheritive/ > freedom-fighting nature of the GPL will always scare some companies > from expressly not doing that when creating proprietary forks. > They'ld rather go with a version whose ancestry can be > defined.
Safer to go back to the original BSD-ish code. In the current climate, it's unlikely that any open-source code once released can be lost forever -- too many archives. > - finding stolen code in open source a few years > down the line and getting into a SCO-IBM like battle The chance of that is nearly nil, IMHO (IANAL, TINLA). Most GPL violations are innocent and/or ignorant, and get resolved early and quietly, according to Eben Moglen, who does most of the enforcing, or "enforcing". -- Work hard, John Cowan play hard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] die young, http://www.reutershealth.com rot quickly. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3