Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 01:23:56PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > 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. > > For example, BSD license gives permission for Microsoft to incorporate > the code in Exchange, improve it, and not give anything back. I find > this unfair [1].
Sure, sure, but that doesn't mean the BSD license is non-free. It's just not "copyleft", or "viral", as Microsoft would call it. Is this a matter of principle for you, or would you actually feel exploited by a closed-source vendor who uses a libspf2 modified by your patch? I mean, they can use the UNmodified libspf2 under the BSD license already. I'm just curious, not trying to pressure you into anything.
pgp7yXmsqYnsC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
