Yeah, i will take note of that. I was thinking if i can release it under a multi-licenses i probably will. Although, preferably i would prefer to release it under a BSD license most likely a 2-clause or 3-clause license just for general BSD compatibility as they are the OS's i am targeting.
From what i understand of the GNU GPL license is that you can release modified source under a combined license with more permissive terms but cannot be released under a more restrictive license.
I also believe from what i have read that a person may release new or modified software/source under the existing GPL license or a later GPL license unless no GPL version number is mentioned in which you can release it under any GNU GPL version desired.
So for example: One could release combined modified source from JFS & AdvFS under the GPL v2 or v3 license. As JFS licensing does not specify a GPL version while AdvFS is under the GPLv2 license.
This also means if i was to use UFS2 source i could only release the new a filesystem under a multi license of BSD & GPL. This still leaves the question of the likelihood it being included into the mainline distribution like NetBSD?
What i mean is, when software is released under a certain license its relatively clear cut as to whether another OS like Linux or BSD will be able to use that software as apart of their mainstream or not. For example ZFS. But how to distributions decide if it can become mainstream under a multi-license? Do they take the software as a whole and base it on the most restrictive license? or is it broken down into separate packages and dependencies?
> From: gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost
> To: martin.kelly4000%gmail.com@localhost
> CC: netbsd-users%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: BSD Licensing Compatibility
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:36:41 -0500
> Martin <martin.kelly4000%gmail.com@localhost> writes:
> > The filesystems i was looking at are:
> > UFS2
> > JFS: GPL v1
> > AdvFS: GPL v2
> You should spend the time to understand the licensing issues. It is not
> immediately clear if GPL1 and GPL2 are compatible. My memory is fuzzy
> on this piont, and GPL1 is almost unheard of these days.
> Also, you should heed Andrew's point about (original/4-clause) BSD vs
> (modified/3-clause) BSD not being compatible with the GPL. (But, I
> don't think it makes any sense to assign incompatibility blame; licenses
> are incompatible iff it is not possible to satisfy them simultaneously.)