Re: Patch Licensing Terms

[Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 5:30 PM, szbnwer@gmail.com <szbnwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi all! :)
>
>
> thx for the interesting materies, im also interested in the very same
> stuffs as these! :)
>
> ive heard that one can double license or relicense their product, but
> im not sure if its true or it have any requirements different than
> what was at the beginning - so ive interpreted this as i can use gpl
> and then give mit for the upstreams for the needed parts, but the
> whole would "downgrade" the gpl... and for sure only if ive made it
> gpl without include gpl code from any other project
>
> putting together gpl with other (and compatible) stuffs makes the
> other stuffs gpl as well but what about (lets say) use luakit (gpl)
> write a library that is exclusively used with it but not strictly
> related so not calling anything from it but luakit using it and its
> kinda related to browsing but could be freestanding... - if its in its
> own file then i can simply give it an mit?
>
> what about linux, that is under gpl if im right, and there are apps
> with various licenses above it that are calling the kernel? its just a
> well separated unit?
>
> sorry if this one is bullshit, but ive heard that one can run a gpl
> (or what else?) stuff on bsd but not vice versa, or what is the point
> where incompatibility of allowing/declining binary distribution blocks
> the road?

In terms of kernel code, anyone is free to use BSD licensed code as
long as the include the copyright. Big chunks of BSD code run in many
OSes, including Android. However, GPL code cannot enter a BSD licensed
kernel. Some new Linux kernel modules are now licensed so that they
can work in both GPL kernels, and also link to proprietary drivers.
This allows them to be used in more liberal licensed kernels. The
Direct Rendering Manager is an example of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rendering_Manager

Some people are still tied in knots about the licensing in ZFS or
DTrace, but that's more of a political stance in my opinion.

Russ

>
> and yes, id also like to make an alpha release in a closed circle with
> additional licenses, and im also afraid of evil guys out there that
> will poison my stuffs with the wrong aims and contents and contexts
> and whatever; take away control with money and big teams or just see
> how the little important pieces working and simply reimplement them in
> an another language and do anything wrong and take away the possible
> users and put them on a different platform like win or mac that are
> basically wrong cuz the closed source and their licenses and i wont
> ever move on those platforms..... much creepy visions and so much
> plans that takes the same funds and same path as ive imagined for the
> right result...
>
> in this case could i simply delete the additional licences? however
> its kinda nothing after one seen the basics, licenses can be bypassed,
> shared ideas with accordance and opened beneficial pathways* can
> probably do more... *: i mean stuff like not sell or publicate
> anything built upon, but can be used for one's own good or for backend
> purposes before time for publicity can come...
>
>
> for the intel me, i could suggest you (and anyone) to search for 'me
> cleaner' on github for erasing an possibly neutralizing it, this
> supports the most machines if im right; libreboot (completely?
> deblobbed replacement, you can find there compatible machines and
> shops for preinstalled machines - its not a bad idea, cuz motherboard
> can be bricked like a phone during flashing); and coreboot which is
> the upstream of libreboot but with blobs and with wiki and a mailing
> list, it can be used on a much wider range of computers - most likely
> you will find what you want on this journey, id suggest you to do a
> research as its a very hardcore topic, and then you may go to the
> coreboot mailing list. ('bad usb' is an another good search term to
> start research for much interesting stuffs)
>
> i didnt really got your aim, if im right its the question that intel
> uefi uses lua or not, but intel forbids revengineering and stuffs,
> however core-/libreboot folks probably relaying on that, but cuz the
> intel license it can be hard to talk about these, and im following
> whats going on there, intel refusing most of the help for them and
> there is a deep opposition between them ... additionally they are
> helpful as i couldnt learn much deep stuffs from there without that,
> but its very hard to follow them, cuz there are dragons all around
> there, you will see it :D
>
>
> thx for the much useful stuff again, just as well as any answer for my
> questions, and good luck with the firmware rabbit's hole! :)
>