5 ms·
I don't really have any problem re-licensing it less restrictively, I don't think. I'll have to think about it for more than 10 seconds I suppose. But I put "GP
by zx2c4 10y ago
I don't really have any problem re-licensing it less restrictively, I don't think. I'll have to think about it for more than 10 seconds I suppose. But I put "GPLv2" there without much thought simply because that's what Linux uses. But you make a good point about the BSDs.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoRemember interoperability in mixed-OS environments. You won't get uptake or contributions from Microsoft, etc. if they have to re-license their kernel in GPL v2. Getting all links encrypted by default might be a worthy enough goal for a BSD license that proprietary will mooch off of. We all benefit in such situations. Especially given how often they muck up VPN's when they code them on their own. ;)
- PeCaN 10y agoAs a hardcore BSD user, GPLv2 is perfectly fine with the BSDs. They all ship with GPLv2 software by default. FreeBSD doesn't like GPLv3, but OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD don't have a problem with it. I don't know about NetBSD off the top of my head. IMO this seems like something that should be GPL and I think you needn't change it.