Hi, On Sat, 01.09.2007 at 00:42:25 -0600, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the > > dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the > > licensing > > deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the > > license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do > > whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted > > prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until > > otherwise stated by the developper. > > That is utterly false.
with all due respect, but this is utterly true, this being the raison d'etre for dual- (or otherwise multi-) licensing *any* software in the first place. While I see what kind of a problem you are talking about, and it surely is an undesirable problem to be sure, the sole reason why BSD can't import back GPL'ed changes is that GPL'ed changes impose more conditions than does the BSD license. Or wrapped in a different way: Were you GPL'ing your code, you had _absolutely_no_ (legal) problems importing back those changes. The GPL ensures availability of source code (which is good!), but those are exactly the strings you opted to not attach to your software with the argument that this kind of force is "non-free". Now, this implies that you consider the ability for a licensor to not give back code a freedom which the Linux community has taken the liberty to make use of, so why do you complain? Honestly, this imho is an ugly side-effect of what you were preaching all the years, but I cannot imagine that it is by evil intention. I hope Eben finds a way to resolve the problem in a way that doesn't draw the line between BSD on one and Linux on the other side. Imho, no-one needs a dog-fight between these two groups, and I also hope that no-one wants it, either, but I'm not so sure about that actually being the case. Weren't you complaining loudly about the absense of contributions from large companies every year when you started a new rally for donations (we donate, according to our feeble possibilities), and now you're claiming that the Linux folks are doing even more evil than those companies who not give back in any form, according to your statements, do? Because they release source code, but you opt to stay too far away to get it? They imho need to do it this way since it is essential for the legal integrity of their system (as much as you chose to not use such stuff for the very same reason). Are you just this very moment saying that you want to enforce a viral effect of the BSD license on Linux via covert action (you could, in theory, have published, thus lessened/avoided this problem *much* earlier)? Because this is what you arrive at, should enough lawyers feel that you are right and the Linux-folks feel unable to remove the BSD-derived code from their stuff. I have a very hard time swallowing that, and even in the name of "freedom"! I also have trouble with you playing the "copyright law is the same, everywhere" argument because this is really not true, and it's even a moving target (though generally moving in the wrong direction). And last, but not least, I'd like to paraphrase the old adage, that you seem to have forgotten: "United we stand, divided we fall." There's a variation that goes like this: "Two people quarreling makes the third (bystander) happy." Best, --Toni++
