| From: | Bruce Perens <bruce(at)perens(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: money handling |
| Date: | 2006-07-16 22:03:15 |
| Message-ID: | 44BAB7A3.5060304@perens.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> O.k. we take a poll. 54% of members agree... what do you do about the
> other 46%?
Hold a discussion among the membership to decide where to go from there.
> I have PostgreSQL, I add library A to PostgreSQL which happens to be
> GPL. I can no longer close source PostgreSQL without removing library A.
None of this says that GPL is not compatible with BSD. And all of this
was discussed to death in the early years of the Open Source campaign.
The BSD license doesn't say that the /entire /product is Open Source. It
doesn't even say that the part the BSD license is on is Open Source,
because it doesn't require that you be able to get the source code. If
you want to make those requirements for the entire program, you will
have to add some other agreement on top of the BSD.
So, where is this thing that makes BSD "more free" according to BSD
fans? It's not in the license at all. It is in the policy that some
projects have that says they will not accept non-BSD-licensed
contributions, and that they will make source code available, and that
they will not bind anyone else to do these things.
Thanks
Bruce
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-07-16 22:47:27 | Re: money handling |
| Previous Message | Bruce Perens | 2006-07-16 21:41:12 | Re: money handling |