On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:00:08PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
v> You're really splitting hairs here, and I think you've pointed out a
> distinction without a difference. Sure, you could have a different
> license, with all the same terms as the GPL, but was called "Ben's Public
> License". Then, yes, you could combine GPL'd software with other
> GPL-compatible code and release it under your BPL. But your BPL is just a
> restating of the GPL; I suppose it could have other terms that don't
> "conflict", but that would mean nothing but additional rights or neutral
> statements like "sunsets are cool."
I suppose you have a point to some extent, the GPL can be difficult to
wrap your head around sometimes. But we do already have GPL compatable
licenses. But this is really beside the point here.
> > I think your position is based on the presumption that any combination
> > of your code and GPL code would be automatically relicensed under the
> > GPL and that as long as you don't complain that there wouldn't be a
> > problem.
>
> That's essentially it, yes.
>
> > If this is true that you won't complain if there is such a combination,
> > why have the clause(s) in there at all that makes it GPL incompatible? Why
> > not simply use something like a 3 clause BSD license.
>
> Because we think asking people to give proper credit is important.
Fair enough.
> > Or is it that you simply want that clause in there for the situations
> > where the code is relicensed under proprietary licenses? If this is a
> > case a dual GPL, Apache 1.1 based license may serve everyones purposes,
> > provided that we can get all future contributors to agree to
> > dual-license their works.
>
> Dual licenses encourage developers to fork, or to give you contributions
> back "but only under the terms of the GPL". I don't wish to play games
> like that, thanks. Furthermore it perpetuates the myth that the FSF is
> the only entity allowed to interpret the GPL.
I don't see how a dual license encourages a fork anymore than any other
license that permits one. Your comment is especially odd in my view
because you've selected a license to be sure that commercial forks were
permitted. So why are you worried about forks?
Then to add to that you're saying that if someone combined your software
and GPL'ed software you'd consider the entire combination to be licensed
under the GPL and you wouldn't have a problem with this. As a result
I'd say you are in essence already GPL licensed.
I also don't see how it prepetuates any myth about the FSF interpretting
the GPL. It just serves to make explicit what you've pretty much
already said.
--
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 2 01:07:35 2004