> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700 > Mike Smith <m...@smith.net.au> 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. \\ msm...@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msm...@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
