On Tuesday 21 September 2004 10:24, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:38:15 -0400, Adam Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would read it as "since the code never forked, we're still BSD". > > > > Inclusion is not conversion, in this case. All the copyright statements > > in the DRM source (excluding your recent commit) specify BSD licenses. > > If the bug-fixers wanted their changes to apply under the GPL they should > > have indicated that by changing the copyright statement at the top of the > > file. > > > > The aggregate kernel is GPL, yes, but that doesn't mean all the > > components are. ppp_deflate.c has gotten fixes from kernel people too, > > but it's still BSD-licensed. > > I've never understood why the aggregate X (which includes some non MIT > licensed code) can't have multiple licenses. The linux kernel does; > other projects do. as long as it's properly labled in the code. > People use X on linux. people run gnome on BSD. technically X and BSD > have slightly different licenes too.
I don't see why it can't either, besides that we've never formally stated that that's okay. If you're not going to link the GPL-licensed bits with a non-GPL kernel, then having GPL bits in the tree isn't a big deal. My strong preference is to minimize GPL code in the tree, for the usual contamination reasons. But either way, we need a formally stated policy. - ajax
pgpVG6CNrXMr1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
