tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Change from BSDL to GPL?

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:41:40PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:00:11AM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > 
> > It turns out that Berkeley has changed the licesne on 4.4BSD-Lite, and you 
> > can now mix it with GPL. So find a copy of 4.4BSD_Lite that has been 
> > changed according to Berkeley's instructions and you're set.
> Maybe you can, and maybe you can't.  One of the clauses of the GPL
> prohibits "any other restrictions" -- you tell me just how another
> legally binding license can be non-null and yet impose no restrictions.

The point of contention between GPL and BSD licensing I've heard discussed 
was the advertizing clause, because it was a restriction in addition to 
the ones that the GPL had.

To answer your direct question, all of the discussions I have read 
regarding the GPL indicated that "any other restrictions" referred to 
restrictions of a type unlike the other ones imposed by the GPL. Thus the 
advertizing clause was a restriction unlike those of the GPL (and more 
restrictive), and thus wasn't OK.

My recollection is that I have, I believe it was 7 years ago, read
BSD-licensed (w/o advertizing clause) source files in the Linux kernel. 
Such a thing would not be legal given the interpretation of "other 
restrictions" you imply above. Now, I realize that what I saw or was told 
was not necessarily legal (it could have been in error). However, at some 
point, arguing an interpretation that disagrees with common usage gets 

Take care,


Attachment: pgpARaK50HwWI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index