[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: L4-hurd discuss

From: David Leimbach
Subject: Re: L4-hurd discuss
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:30:47 -0700

On Jun 26, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Daniel Martin wrote:

Hi everyone.

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 01:00 +0800, Neil Santos wrote:

On 19:32 25/06/05, Benno wrote:

Right, the specific comment seemed to imply a problem with BSD licensed
software, not BSD kernel. Or to put it another way to above comment
doesn't mention a problem with a GNU/*BSD system due to technical
problems with the *BSD kernels, but simply due to the fact that they are
licensed under the BSD license. If I mistunderstood the point then I

Okay, this is going to mess things up a bit more, but...

I *do* have a problem with BSD-licensed software; or, rather, I have a
problem with the BSD-style licenses (and all other
free-but-not-copyleft licenses). That is, I have a problem with using
a free-but-not-copyleft license for anything I create, but I *don't*
have a problem with using other's softwares.

I'll even help with it, if I'm able.  Or steal from it, and make the
derivative copylefted, if possible.  If you think this is not much
better (if at all) than what some proprietary developers have done
(and are doing), I won't argue. That's just the way I do things.

The BSD license is both free and GPL compatible, so surely that makes
the BSD kernels a better choice for monolithic kernels that the
OpenSolaris one?

I see no problem with relicensing BSD works to the GNU GPL. Surely if
the BSD authors are prepared to allow their work to be molested in to
non-free software then they can't complain when their work is reborn
copyleft. The choice was made when they chose the BSD license I don't
see anything wrong as long as the terms of the license are upheld. Just
as I don't see anything wrong when BSD software is made non-free. The
authors choose to allow this.

Actually relicensing works under the BSD to GPL may be illegal as you don't
have the copyrights to make that change.

The BSD says you can redistribute it however you want, not rewrite the license
if you don't agree with it's terms.

I'd seriously consult a lawyer before attempting anything that potentially
violates the originator's wishes.

The GNU/kFreeBSD project is the GNU operating system running on top of
FreeBSD's kernel, which is licensed under the BSD license. I can't
imagine them going off and supporting a non-free fork of the kernel. If
the FreeBSD project suddenly decided to make it non-free then I expect
they would fork the kernel rather than support the new non-free kernel.

Of course I expect `GNU' (that operating system Alfred releases from
time to time!) will be far nicer when it reaches maturity. (GNU
incorporates the official kernel replacement of course, ยต-kernel + the

Unless the Hurd developers don't finish and keep talking about this stuff
instead :).

Like (I think) I've previously said, I'll only share if you'd share,
but I won't let anyone else share.

You lost me! :-)

Best wishes,


L4-hurd mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]