|Re: [eigen] copyright / license question|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
Thanks for the explanation!
Somehow I took Theo de Raadt's words too litteraly, I didn't realize that his
phrasing could be that misleading.
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 08:48:02 Cyrille Berger wrote:
> On Monday 03 November 2008, Benoît Jacob wrote:
> > Hum wait, being "compatible" doesn't mean "allow to relicense", for
> > example BSD is GPL-compatible but one can't relicense from BSD to GPL
> > (see e.g. the fuss that happened when a linux driver developer mistakenly
> > relicensed OpenBSD code to GPL in a wifi driver).
> We are moving a little bit off topic :)
> Hum, that's the other way around, the wifi driver was GPL code, an OpenBSD
> dev was working on BSD version and during his developement he was using GPL
> code from an other driver but he had wiped out the GPL license to put BSD,
> which is wrong. And the second clash was for an other driver which was
> available as a dual license BSD + GPL, and someone decided to include it in
> linux and drop the BSD license (which I find extremely rude but which is
> completely allowed by a dual license scheme, otherwise what the point ?),
> but Theo, the OpenBSD leader, have a deep hatred of the FSF and Linux, and
> find there the occasion to take revenge on linux on what have happened
> during the wifi driver using GPL-code-under-BSD.
> So yes beeing compatible with GPL means the possibility to add the clauses
> of the GPL that aren't in the original license (which prevents GPLv2 and
> GPLv3 to be compatible) and that the clause of the license are included in
> GPL. So if you take BSD code, and write modification, your modification can
> be under the GPL. This effectively relicense the file to GPL, if you want
> to stay safe you can keep the BSD copyright header, and just add GPL header
> in the file, but since BSD clauses are contains in GPL, well it's not
> really necesserary.