Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The converse is hardly true since almost all non-GPL open source code can be relicensed as GPL.

While the FSF has actively promoted this view, for many actual open source licenses for which they promote the view, it requires a rather creative (at best) reading of one or both of the two licenses involved to support this claim.



That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but I will agree with them that it's obviously true for MIT/BSD which is a significant amount of code.


the FSF was involved in a counter example: http://lwn.net/Articles/247806/


I'm sorry I don't really know what I'm looking at here. It looks like GPL + BSD = GPL in MODULE_LICENSE. Am I missing something?


The BSD code is still BSD, your mods are GPL.


But the project is GPL. I can't sell a commercial binary without the source.


  > While the FSF has actively promoted this view
Could you cite any cases where the FSF has claimed it's legal to change the license on other people's code?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: