> Would it be wrong to develop software using existing GPL'ed code as a > starting point. > And bit by bit rewrite the code until you have rewritten all of it. > Then releasing the final code under an BSD license?
*shrug* Personally I consider that a derivative work and try to avoid it, though practically if your rewrite is different enough nobody would ever know. Maybe this is the other side of the blob fight; we should be just as eager to make sure there is no improperly-copied GPL (or APL or MPL or...) code in the tree as we are to make sure there are no mysterious hunks of binary code (why exactly these issues always seem to come to a head about wireless drivers as opposed to other parts of the tree is beyond me -- Intel never requires its sound or ethernet controllers to have non-freely-redistributable firmware). IMO this is a vindication of the principle that being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you wrong: Michael should have handled this differently (especially given the state of the driver at the time), but he does have a responsibility to protect his license. It seems to be a big concern to him that the hardware vendor not be able to use his software, so the GPL is the correct license for his work. I have trouble imagining a situation where I wouldn't want a hardware vendor to use my code if it worked better, but he's the author so it's his decision to make. Weldon [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
