Joshua D. Drake wrote:O.k. we take a poll. 54% of members agree... what do you do about the other 46%?Hold a discussion among the membership to decide where to go from there. I have PostgreSQL, I add library A to PostgreSQL which happens to be GPL. I can no longer close source PostgreSQL without removing library A.None of this says that GPL is not compatible with BSD. And all of this was discussed to death in the early years of the Open Source campaign. The BSD license doesn't say that the entire product is Open Source. It doesn't even say that the part the BSD license is on is Open Source, because it doesn't require that you be able to get the source code. If you want to make those requirements for the entire program, you will have to add some other agreement on top of the BSD. So, where is this thing that makes BSD "more free" according to BSD fans? It's not in the license at all. It is in the policy that some projects have that says they will not accept non-BSD-licensed contributions, and that they will make source code available, and that they will not bind anyone else to do these things. Thanks Bruce |
_______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general
