> For example, the TCP/IP stack in Linux is covered by the BSD license,
> but since code in the TCP/IP stack shows up in a Linux distro that's
> covered by the GPL, a lawyer could argue that work done on the BSD
> TCP/IP stack that eventually makes its way into a Linux distribution is
> ALSO covered by the GPL. So for all intents and purposes, the GPL
> (which is the most restrictive of the open source licenses) could be
> construed to cover all the other open source licenses.
I know this is getting way off topic, but this misconception needs
to be shut down.
A derivitave license cannot remove rights from a parent license on the
parent code. If a Gnu project programmer absorbs BSD licensed code,
changes it, then redistributes the modified code under the GPL, the
GPL on the derived code cannot [1] affect the license of the code it
was derived from.
--lyndon
[1] You could make an argument against this if the original author
gave up his moral rights to the original code, From what I've
read, though, it's not possible to give away those rights
in that manner in some (many?) jurisdictions. Specifically,
Canadian law (case law and the Copyright Act) seems to make
this very difficult to do. (IANAL, etc.)
