Dave Jones apparently doesn't think BSD is GPL-compatibleeither...

Jason Schoon floydpink at gmail.com
Tue Aug 15 22:01:23 UTC 2006


On 8/15/06, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>
> On Monday 14 August 2006 9:59 am, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > > Because the BSD license text is not a copyright notice, it's a
> license?
> > > (Copyright and license aren't the same thing.)
> >
> > IANAL but I still don't see how keeping the license text is an additinal
> > restriction. You have to keep the license text in GPL too.
>
> A) You don't have to keep the license text in your program, no.  None of
> our C
> files have the complete license text, and we changed the boilerplate of
> the
> permission grants (which said to mail away for a copy of the license
> text).
>
> B) It's not the same license text, it's some _other_ license text.  Can we
> be
> required to keep a complete copy of Linconln's gettysburg address in each
> of
> our source files without violating the GPL as well?
>
> C) http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2004021803026NWDTLL


Note the very interesting (and pertinent) quote by Theo de Raadt here
though:

"...de Raadt elaborated on his decision in the same post: "I've tried to
negotiate with David Dawes, and show him that his new license is not
acceptable, and he has been hostile and it has gone nowhere. He keeps
insisting that his license is a standard BSD licenses, yet, he won't use the
same words that Berkeley used; if his words were intended to be compatible
to the Berkeley spirit then he would be happy to use the same words; but he
is not, and insists on different words which a lot of the community has
trouble with."



Rob
> --
> Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060815/e1aa1a5e/attachment.htm 


More information about the busybox mailing list