thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra spake:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is false, only if software is distributed.
What is of course not your intention... :D
or alternatively
you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not.
Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as
long as you don't distribute software.
Dito. Totally pointless, this discussion.
Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the
rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to
anybody else you are giving this too.
Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL
Yes, BUT (s)he thought that the guy choosing has morals and a brain;
obviously (s)he didn't think of the GNU/Linux lunatics.
And especially if you would be
giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting
their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder
and also something you fortunately can't be doing.
Tough luck.
If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't
even look at it.
Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users.
If your problem is that people don't give back,
You did not understand; it's not about DOING, it's about BEING ALLOWED
TO USE WHAT IS GIVEN BACK.
Reread this in the original post until you understand it (and beware of
deadlocks).
go knock on certain vendors who
profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't
have to, have they? :)
No, they don't have to, and that has been clear from the start of the
project; the issue discussed that you're trying to raise is a MORAL thing.
YOU are introducing the one-way street here, nobody else.
Rui
Timo
