On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, | > they don't require it, so we don't have to". | >... | | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less | protection for the code than the GPL does.
It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not mean you in person] | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything | back on moral grounds. I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal. I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being | available with less protection. If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL]. If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received. This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it. BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations] I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in | a friendly way. This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to lose). Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+ +++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]