> I found a couple of articles talking about GPL vs LGPL. Right now, I'm
> inclinded to go with GPL. However, the individual I'm in contact with is
> claiming that "Licensing it with pure GPL, means you can ONLY USE GPL KERNELS.
> Which means even *BSD couldnt use it." How accurate is this?
Its true to an extent. Roughly speaking the licenses line up something like
this
o GPL - protects the work as a whole
o LGPL - protects the work as a library but allows it to be used
with non-free code
o MPL - protects the file level rights not module level
o BSD - microsoft can drop it in NT if they want fix it and keep
the changes
It depends what you wanted to achieve. People have done various single or
multiple licensed items. There are several dual GPL/BSD devices in the
kernel because that is what the driver author wanted.
If your code is based on someone elses ("derived work" in legalese) then you
need to get their permission too or stop using the bita you acquired that
way (eg if you based it on the usb skeleton driver).
At the end of the day its your business if its your code. Simple as that.
Alan
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
