> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700
> Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
> > > would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
> >
> > It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's
> > no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to
> > recover post-viral changes and reuse them in their own XFS product.
>
> No, that's not true. The GPL cannot *replace* a license that is on a
> piece of code. If people modify a piece of BSD-licensed software, they
> are doing so in accordance to the BSD-style license on that code.
>
> What the GPL does is require that full source for the program be included
> with the program, and that full source, in my example, would include
> a BSD-licensed XFS module.
It also requires that the GPL be attached to that additional source
component. Go back and read section 3 of the GPL again.
We've had this discussion before.
--
\\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith
\\ of the man. \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
