Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:25:26PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Robert's patch needs to be dual-licensed under LGPL and BSD just like > > libspf2 in order to allow the patched libspf2 to be distributed under > > the BSD license in the future. Robert, would you consider resubmitting > > your patch with the license note amended to that effect? > > To be honest, I have to say that I don't like the possibility of my code > becoming non-free.
I can see that. However, how would dual-licensing your patch under LGPL and BSD make your patch non-free? BSD just isn't "copyleft" (in FSF terms[1]), but it's free nonetheless. > If there's ever someone actively maintaining libspf2 again, and that > person wants to stick with an unprotected license, I'll gladly license > it in these terms. What's an "unprotected" license? A "copyleft" one? References: 1. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/copyleft.html
pgpGG8GaPMje3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
