Subject: Re: Sun to free Solaris.
From: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:32:46 -0800
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:32:46 -0800
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:37:09AM -0500, Brian Bartholomew wrote:
> > So is Apache an instance of project forking in part based on
> > licensing terms?  I'd been looking for instances of this previously,
> > and had come up only with the Qt project.
> You missed the forest.  Every proprietary derivative of a BSD or MIT
> license is a fork based on license.  It goes the opposite direction
> than I suspect you're interested in, but that's interesting too.

Well, yeah.  What's the expression?  Doh!

I'm pretty aware of that situation.  A question that's come up in
another context is the issue of whether and/or how soon a work issued
under an other-than-GPL license, but compatible with GPL, is
license-forked to GPL-only.

There are very, very few instances which come to mind.  Apache was one I
should have thought of (though this was a whatever-NCSA-was-to-BSD
fork).   And BSD is pretty bloody compatible, as you've just pointed
out.  Apache itself has seen a few proprietary forkings itself, though
several seem to have pretty much died out.

Anyway, it seems that the idea of a company's
free-software-but-not-GPL'd work getting converted to GPL is somewhat
unnerving to, if not a lot of folks, enough in the right (or wrong)
places to make companies think long and hard about whether that's
something they want to do.

> A member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Bartholomew - - - Working Version, Cambridge, MA

Karsten M. Self (
    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SAS for Linux:
Mailing list:  "subscribe sas-linux" to

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]