On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 01:23:56PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:25:26PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > > Robert's patch needs to be dual-licensed under LGPL and BSD just like
> > > libspf2 in order to allow the patched libspf2 to be distributed under
> > > the BSD license in the future. Robert, would you consider resubmitting
> > > your patch with the license note amended to that effect?
> >
> > To be honest, I have to say that I don't like the possibility of my code
> > becoming non-free.
>
> I can see that. However, how would dual-licensing your patch under LGPL
> and BSD make your patch non-free? BSD just isn't "copyleft" (in FSF
> terms[1]), but it's free nonetheless.
For example, BSD license gives permission for Microsoft to incorporate the code
in Exchange, improve it, and not give anything back. I find this unfair [1].
OTOH, it goes both ways. BSD license also gives permission for Debian to
combine the code with an LGPL patch and distribute the result.
What strikes me most as being contradictory, is when someone finds the first
behaviour acceptable but not the second. Why is it ok for Microsoft to
relicense but not for Debian? They're both distributors of a derivative work.
[1] Note that with LGPL, they still can use libspf2 in Exchange and not release
any Exchange code back, as long as libspf2 is distributed as a dynamicaly
linked DLL and the modifications to libspf2 itself are released.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
