Sorry, Ieft a piece of my post separated and forgot to merge it.
The fact the license doesn't mandate distribution of the source code doesn't mean they can change the license. They just are not obliged by the current license to release modifications. The code you add to it can have whatever license you want, you can license the patch any way you want (and this is a real world problem when you want to change the license of a project: every contributor usually gets the copyright for their patches, which means the change requires authorization for all and every contributors, or their code needs to be cropped from the project before the change). The code you based upon, can not. It is still BSD licensed, and that's why you have to copy the license notice.
It doesn't depend on the portion of GPL code you use, as simple as that. If you want to use GPL code, you must accept the conditions, as with any software. If you don't want, and it was actual so much a trivial amount, it is an even bigger reason to just write your own, instead of using the GPL code.
Ask the developers, they chose the GPL. Ask yourself, you chose to use their code.
Some does. And aside from Android and Firefox users (both of which are too popular because of other merits to be included in my reasoning), almost all of free software users actually care and know about this freedoms.
No, it is there to protect freedom. A specific concept of freedom. I thought we've had agreed on that.
Originally posted by Cthulhux
View Post
Originally posted by Sergio
View Post
Yes; their code is GPL and that is not going to change. Why does my code need to be GPL as well?
Interesting... I think that the majority of end users don't care for this ' freedom'. I'm pretty sure they are not even AWARE of this.
Yes; the GPL code is there for that purpose, same as the BSD code. The reason GPL exists is not to give 'freedom' to end users; it exists solely for giving the middle finger to corporations.
Comment