Cant the BSD people get together with Linus and his guys and agree to relicense every derived work in the other license? For example: 1) Linux dev dl's spiffy-superdrivers from openbsd 2) Linux dev ports it and makes changes to it 3) Linux dev branches resulting code with the original license BSD and points the bsd guys there 4) Linux dev submits driver to linus (or whomever) in the GPL license 5) Should work the other way arround (s/Linux/BSD) 6) Even in the future, should anyone from the BSD camp request a parti
It won't work. The BSD licence (I'm going to get modded down to oblivion and flamed from several directions for this) is completely open. Anyone, including large corporations, can take it and use it for whatever purpose they like providing they leave the copyright header and however many clauses of the license intact in the source, binary and documentation. The GPL, on the other hand, is open with the proviso that it does not end up in proprietary software. You can take BSD code and put it into Windows. You can't take GPL code and put it into Windows without opening and providing source for everything that it touches and everything that links with it [1].
Now, here's the problem: The proponents of the GPL, quite rightly and legitimately, want to keep their software and source both available and out of closed source software, which is their right as copyright holders. Under no circumstances will a binary based on GPL source be distributed in a form that is unalterable and without source. However, if the developers of, say, the Broadcom driver allow one of the BSDs to relicense under the BSD two or three clause licence, this protection no longer applies. Broadcom could then quite legitimately drag any changes they think are more elegant or effective than their in-house methods and use them without a thought to giving back to the community that wrote them. This is why it is a one-way street. I don't necessarily agree with it, being a BSD user, but I certainly understand the objections of the GPL developers.
[1] The LGPL is slightly different in this respect.
Yeah but (dont you love those?), if the original work is BSD, the BSD camp should get at least the first iteration in their own license. I think its fair even if it sacrifices the GPL spirit a little. The pitfall is precisely what you point out, no doubt, but if a public arrangement can be made (as in, the next three versions of the derived work in linux will be dual licensed and after that, no more), I think they could reach an agreement that lets both camps take from the other without passing so much flame
Yeah but (dont you love those?), if the original work is BSD, the BSD camp should get at least the first iteration in their own license. I think its fair even if it sacrifices the GPL spirit a little.
No argument from me there. I'd love to see this happen. However, we're dealing with something akin to two different religions here; we both worship the same god but our doctrines are incompatible.
The pitfall is precisely what you point out, no doubt, but if a public arrangement can be made (as in, the next th
It should be this simple (Score:1)
For example:
1) Linux dev dl's spiffy-superdrivers from openbsd
2) Linux dev ports it and makes changes to it
3) Linux dev branches resulting code with the original license BSD and points the bsd guys there
4) Linux dev submits driver to linus (or whomever) in the GPL license
5) Should work the other way arround (s/Linux/BSD)
6) Even in the future, should anyone from the BSD camp request a parti
Re:It should be this simple (Score:2)
Now, here's the problem: The proponents of the GPL, quite rightly and legitimately, want to keep their software and source both available and out of closed source software, which is their right as copyright holders. Under no circumstances will a binary based on GPL source be distributed in a form that is unalterable and without source. However, if the developers of, say, the Broadcom driver allow one of the BSDs to relicense under the BSD two or three clause licence, this protection no longer applies. Broadcom could then quite legitimately drag any changes they think are more elegant or effective than their in-house methods and use them without a thought to giving back to the community that wrote them. This is why it is a one-way street. I don't necessarily agree with it, being a BSD user, but I certainly understand the objections of the GPL developers.
[1] The LGPL is slightly different in this respect.
Re: (Score:1)
The pitfall is precisely what you point out, no doubt, but if a public arrangement can be made (as in, the next three versions of the derived work in linux will be dual licensed and after that, no more), I think they could reach an agreement that lets both camps take from the other without passing so much flame
Re: (Score:2)
No argument from me there. I'd love to see this happen. However, we're dealing with something akin to two different religions here; we both worship the same god but our doctrines are incompatible.