Discuss: BSD Protection License

phil hunt philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Mar 13 16:34:00 UTC 2002

On Wednesday 13 March 2002  1:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 14:04 13/03/2002 +0000, phil hunt wrote:
> >I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be
> >deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open
> >source license.
>    No, it isn't.  The intent is to ensure that a "free for both open and
> closed source use" body of code can't be turned into a "free for open
> source use only" body of code. 

Yes, and you're doing that by deliberate GPL-incompatibility.

> I mention "GPL-taint" because the GPL is
> the most common example of an (from my point of view) overly restrictive
> license.

So, you admit that it is deliberately incompatible with the GPL.

Do you also admit (as can be easily demonstrated by looking at Freshmeat)
that the GPL is the most popular open source license?

Because, IMO, you must either admit that I am right, or deny something 
that is blatently obvious.

I also notice your word "taint" used to describe the GPL. Here, you
seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source license, 
and by implication, people who choose to write software under this 
license; thus it seems to me therefore that you dislike a large part of 
the OS/FS community.

>    There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license
> (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is
> incorporated under the same license. 

Indeed so.

> This merely formalizes that.

That is not true.

<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list