Markus Rechberger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Steven Toth <stoth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> barry bouwsma wrote: >>> --- On Sun, 9/14/08, Steven Toth <stoth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> is that the BSD folks can't port the GPL license into BSD because it's >>>> not compatible. >>> I don't want to see any religious war here (trimmed to dvb >>> list), but... >>> >>> There is GPL code distributed as part of *BSD sources, >>> as you can see by reading the licensing in, for example, >>> $ ls /lost+found/CVSUP/BSD/FreeBSD.cvs/src/sys/gnu/dev/sound/pci/ >>> Attic emu10k1-alsa.h,v maestro3_reg.h,v p17v-alsa.h,v >>> csaimg.h,v maestro3_dsp.h,v p16v-alsa.h,v >> Interesting. >> >>> >>>> I owe it to myself to spend somehime reading the BSD licencing. Maybe >>>> the GPL is compatible with BSD. >>> It all depends on the intended use -- whether for optional >>> kernel components as above. In the distributions, though, >>> it's kept separated. >>> >>> It's also possible to dual-licence source, and I see a good >>> number of such files in NetBSD under, as an example, >>> /lost+found/CVSUP/BSD/NetBSD.cvs/src/sys/dev/ic/ >> I'm be quite happy to grant a second license on my work the the BSD >> guys, as the copyright owner I can do that. The legal stuff gets messy >> quickly and I don't claim to understand all of it. >> > > Great move Steven! Can we move the TDA10048 code over, maybe adding > a note that it's dual licensed would be nice? In principle yes. I'd like to see an example of dual license just to make sure it has no nasty side effects. Can you point me at one of your dual-license drivers so I can review the wording? Regards, Steve _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
