On 10/28/07, stef mientki wrote: > > > And adds one more argument to what I said: 'do NOT mix open source > > licenses with each other and with closed license code'. > > > If that's true, that's definitely the end of open source ;-) I think it should be rephrased as " DO not mix permissive license like BSD with more restricted license like GPL without consulting the lawyer". http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2902106404.html OpenBSD developers are not happy with some GPL wrappers on BSD codes. However, some Linux developers are also unhappy that BSD may copy their codes and put BSD licenses on them. The following is a very good technical discussion. However licensing problem does come into play. http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/6720281.html On 5/18/07, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:13 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > So what's the model ... GPL'd Linux drivers will be modified to > > incorporate that call, so they'd work better on FreeBSD? > > I thought that we ignored this on purpose and talking about the > licensing so deeply in the thread is too late. What have we spent > all this energy for up to this point? > > It was clear from the start that the model is exactly what you > surmised. It's a fact of life that BSDs steal Linux code and slap > their own copyright and licensing on it. The story of OpenBSD and > the Broadcom wireless was just the latest example. However, we > cannot preclude them doing this, and least of all by pretending > that they'd stop if we ask nicely. > > I chose to not discuss this up to this point and take the best > from Hans' independent insight, because this way I (as a kernel > hacker) receive at least some benefit. If I turned Hans away right > off the bat, his cohorts would still do the same thing, only without > talking to us. That would be a net loss for Linux. > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist