Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > It doesn't make sense in general. Being derived from *BSD may mean > only a tiny fragment comes from *BSD. I can't see any valid reason > to force/ask the author to publish his/her code under BSD > (GPL + BSD = BSD) instead of GPLv2 as used by the whole Linux. > > There are exceptions, of course - if you take a *BSD project and > include it with no/minor changes it makes sense to use BSD licence, > because we really want to cooperate, and because we don't have to > fear "evil corporations" taking our code (because it's mostly not > "ours").
Well, you've shown both poles, where the correct licensing decision seems quite obvious. But in between there lies the great gray area, where it's not so clear. Lets say you take a BSD driver and perform a medium sized hack, eg add a new feature and include it into Linux kernel. Now you've got code that has been mainly of appropriate *BSD authorship, but with a reason for them (and the "evil corporations") to want the change ported back. The final choice *is* to be made by the author, it's the right way to be. What I suggest is to encourage authors to share back, best done by maintainer asking to do so just before committing. -- Remigiusz 'lRem' Modrzejewski Contact: http://lrem.net/pages/view/about Feel free to correct my English. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
