Brad Salai wrote:
> At 8:47 AM -0400 8/5/98, Allen Briggs wrote:
> >> So, you basically cannot use Linux kernel source
> >> code in a NetBSD kernel or vice-versa.  For the mac68k ports of Linux and
> >> NetBSD, this means that each camp must figure out all the hardware for
> >> themselves, duplicating a lot of effort in some cases.
> >
> >Actually, isn't it OK if the author of the code releases two versions
> >(one under the GPL, and another with the BSD-style copyright)?  The
> >kernels are different enough that it would take a lot of work to
> >translate most drivers from one to the other, but this might make things
> >a little easier.
> >
> Yes, that could be done, but it would be unusual. What you would be
> permitted to do with the code would depend on which version you were
> looking at. In effect, you would end up with the least restrictive parts of
> each license, that is you could do whatever either one permitted. You
> wouldn't be bound by the sum of the restrictions.

Actually, from the way the GPL is written, I think you have to pretty much
choose one or the other set of terms to comply with (of course, IANAL, and
it's been a while since I've read the GPL in full :-)  One example of this
is Perl, which can be distributed under either the GPL or the "Artistic"
license (which is far less restrictive).

In general, tho, I've got to agree with Brad that this would be unusual,
since (in my experience from watching flame wars on the subject) most
people who GPL their code seem to be somewhat rabidly in favor of the GPL
(and of course many people who put their code under a BSD license tend to
be somewhat rabidly opposed to the GPL ;-)

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - PMD                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.