Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> Nice case. Of course this happens only because the GPL is viral.

You know, you might want to save the polemics for a crowd that's less
experienced in these matters.  With the possible exception of Ken Brown,
nobody here's likely to be impressed.  ;->

(The AIC7XXX driver is dual-licensed for _compatibility_ with both
BSD-licensed and GPL-licensed codebases.  Not being complete idiots,
nobody here, to my knowledge, buys that drivel about the creation of
derivative works including GPL codebases somehow wrenching inherent
ownership rights out of the hands of the other codebase's owner, and
"forcing" it also to be issued under GPL terms.)

In the event that you're not just trolling, and are honestly new to the
issue, there are a number of terms less likely to make you sound like a
licensing crank:  "ShareAlike" (from Creative Commons), "reciprocal"
(from OSI, Objectweb.org, and others), or "copyleft" (from FSF).

Personally, I would go with "reciprocal".

Cheers,     "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me.  Every 
Rick Moen   few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!' and have to go
[EMAIL PROTECTED]       read something from _Structure and Interpretation of
            Computer Programs_ to de-stress."   -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to