On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Sunday 08 April 2007 15:27, Reyk Floeter wrote: > > Instead of attacking developers of non-GPL free software, you should > > point your lawyers into another direction to think about ways to > > include GPL-compatible BSD/ISC code in the Linux kernel without the > > need for relicensing it. Talk to the Linux maintainers to change this > > stupid Dual GPL/* policy. > > > > It is your choice, you can also rewrite the "OpenHAL" and take my code > > as a reference. The copyright does not protect the "idea" of the > > implementation or the algorithms. Feel free to read my code, interpret > > it and express it differently. > > Excuse my ignorance, please, but I don't see where the real problem is. > What's the problem with taking openHAL and putting it into the yet to > be written GPLed linux atheros driver, while preserving your copyright > notices. I don't see how this could violate the BSD license. > > Such stuff is going on day by day. One good example of BSD code put into > code with another license was MS with the NT TCP stack. At least of my > knowledge that was the FreeBSD stack, until they rewrote it. > > So, what's the problem, really? Create a derivative work, where > the original openHAL parts are still de-facto BSD licensed, but the rest > is GPLed. > I expected that you know the Linux kernel license policies. But you got it, it doesn't make sense. reyk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
