Intel, Red Hat Agree To BSD License For Intel Patches

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel, Red Hat Agree To BSD License For Intel Patches

Posted by timothy on Sunday February 16, 2003 @06:19AM from the bsd-is-like-a-convertable-suv dept.

stock points to this story on CNET, excerpting "Red Hat and Intel have settled a licensing hiccup that threatened to prevent the Linux company from contributing to Intel's open-source project--a reminder of the frictions that can arise between the commercial tech world and the open-source community." By adding a BSD-variant license to certain kernel contributions from Intel, the two companies have bridged an impasse between the GPL and Intel's "component architecture" license.

11 of 127 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:What will Linus say? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 06:25 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Want fries with that.
Nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 06:26 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Are they nuts. If intel doesn't do it GPL, to hell with them.
Maybe Redhat should ask AMD, maybe they wil do it the GPL way.

They a just patches to the kernel man. GPL won't kill intel in any way.

I'm interested in the other comments to this article...
Re:Red Hat is great! by sardonic2 · 2003-02-16 06:27 · Score: -1, Flamebait

idiot
Re:Indeed, as this agreement shows by gearheadsmp · 2003-02-16 06:31 · Score: 0, Flamebait

OSS will soon embrace, extend and ultimately absorb closed source software into Open Source.

Or if your name is Lord Borg Gates: Embrace, Extend, and Assimilate.
ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 06:32 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Look, your choices are BSD or GPL. Everything else is just the result of a lawyer's premature ejaculation.

Every company seems to want to make up it's own "open source license" .. just pick one of those two okay?

And stop bullshit about BSD vs. GPL. For 99% of users they are THE SAME.

Thanks you, have teh nice day!
Big Companies by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 07:15 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Will always get there way. I dont give a shit what the Zealots of BSD have to say GPL is the only good license. It is a license of the people for the people. BSD license only help corporate whores
Why not to use LGPL? by k-s · 2003-02-16 07:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Why not to use LGPL? So they keep the ACPI stuff open and don't need to open anything else.

I really don't like the BSD license 'cause I don't like to see my code on the Microsoft and folks hands and in another license!
Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 08:45 · Score: -1, Flamebait

I think you mean a Linux developer, not a real developer.
Re:How does redhat even have the authority to do t by Alomex · 2003-02-16 10:19 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Frankly, I think your statement is fear mongering, and it's just giving ammunition to the bad guys.

On the contrary, I think the bad guys are intelligently focusing in one of the weak aspects of OSS, namely the overly-aggressive GPL.

Now we can either plug up the hole and solidify OSS' position by moving to a more reasonable BSD style license or we can bury our head in the sand and deny there is anything wrong with the GPL.
GPL == theft. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 10:19 · Score: -1, Flamebait

What will Linus say?
Who cares?
What will Stallman say?
Who gives a damn?
1. Re:GPL == theft. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 11:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  I will bite.
  
  Your a dumb fuck. You are a corporate muppet. Why dont you keep you dumb fucking mouth shut. I hope that some company shits on your family so you can see what they are.