Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]
From: WHS <wouters@cistron.nl>
To : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:09:39 +0200
Re: Do We Want KGI To Be The Standard? (Re: I'm back)
Andrew Apted wrote:
>
> Hartmut writes:
>
> > > > - we use GPL and have trouble with the *BSD crowd,
> > > > - we use BSD and have trouble with the Linux crowd,
> > >
> > > Nobody have any problem with the X license, no? We'll simply use that
> > > one..
> > >
> > > --
> > > Torgeir Veimo, Vertech AS,
> > In the *Kernel*?
> > I can imagine trouble coming if Xish licensed material gets compiled
> > into a linux or *bsd KERNEL. Or am I totally off??
>
> No you're right. If it gets statically linked into the kernel (i.e.
> becomes a part of vmlinux/zImage/whatever), then it must be GPL. This
> is why there are a couple of "module only" things -- because they are
> BSD (e.g. the ppp compression IIRC).
No, this is NOT a problem, except for the old BSD style license. X and 2
clause BSD (as used in FreeBSD) can be compiled into a GPL program and
also into a BSD program (either as a separate file or into a BSD file,
as you can add license clauses to BSD stuff (not possible with GPL btw)
so this would not be a problem, as the licenses are equivalent in
spirit.
So BSD-2 or X is ok everywhere.
Bye,
Wouter
Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]