I do not think the main issue of compatibility (legal sense) of the GPL and BSD licenses has been resolved.
When it comes to derived works, 'compatibility' in the legal sense = dual licensing should be admissible. For FOSS people, licensing different parts of a s/w under BSD and GPL should not be much of a problem (as it had happened in the ath5k driver case). The other important part is the re-licensing issue. It is a fact that BSD Code + few proprietary LOC = proprietary closed source code is admissible. I do not think the BSD people are sane in insisting that derived works should not be licensed under GPL. If the GPLed derivative becomes more advanced than the BSD derivative ... then so what? The only conclusion can be that the free BSD license is inherently defective and needs reworking (also from the legal point of view). __________________________________________ (comment on the following only : ) >From their mailing lists, it is clear that the BSD people are too irresponsible to stand by the 'knowledge should be free forever' principle. Instead some want to function as agents of proprietary corporations. It is a provable fact that 'software is a form of knowledge'. If BSD people believe that 'software is a form of knowledge', then their belief is inconsistent as they tolerate and endorse the 'software is a product' idea. The BSD principle seems to be 'If the source is looks like knowledge then see it as knowledge and a product and if it looks like a product, then make it into a product' :) Best A. Mani -- A. Mani ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://www.logicamani.co.cc _______________________________________________ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://mail.ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #[email protected]
