On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to
think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)
Why this can't be fixes ?
That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.
CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like
"CDDL is pseudo-proprietary licence" ? Are you still taking about (and
only) CDDL ?
I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
moments, and made the right decision.
I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I
see (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses
which provides more oppened (and not closed) code.
kloczek
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [email protected]*
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
