| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:31:09 -0700 |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Of course, the other possibility, if the permissiveness of BSD is |
| 5 |
> desired, |
| 6 |
> would be a dual-license BSD/GPL. That clears up any possible |
| 7 |
> conflicts |
| 8 |
> directly and immediately. OTOH, with portage itself already GPL2 |
| 9 |
> licensed, I'm not sure I see much point in BSD licensing any portage |
| 10 |
> dependent new code, in any case, since it's dependent on GPL2 code |
| 11 |
> anyway. |
| 12 |
> Still, the dual license certainly can't harm, and would likely be my |
| 13 |
> choice if I wanted the BSD permissiveness to apply to my code, |
| 14 |
> under the |
| 15 |
> circumstances. (FWIW, I prefer GPL, so there's no question that's |
| 16 |
> how I'd |
| 17 |
> license it if it were me, but it's not, so that doesn't count.) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
BSD licence allows any fork to be created with any other licence, so |
| 21 |
a BSD project can have a GPL fork. I didn't thought about changing |
| 22 |
Portage itself simply because I don't know if the changes are welcome |
| 23 |
to Gentoo itself, probably more a Gentoo server project. But if that |
| 24 |
is a possibility I have no problems with GPL. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ricardo Loureiro |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
http://pgp.dei.uc.pt:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6B7C0EC0 |
Archives