On 8/19/05, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an > > instant, and I suspect > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it > > would become useless > > > > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, > > merely that the license be > > modified to be GPL compatible. > > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means > derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But > the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under > the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the > GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that > says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL. >
That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code become this way. Then the people that made the most original contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's the principle of the matter. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
