Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

I know asking for MIT / BSD or Apache 2 may be a little bit of stretch.

But any chance of LGPL? Or would we need a conplete reimplementation for BSD?

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.

Remember 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. ;)

As 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.

GPLv2 doesn't work for in-kernel code, or for code that could be used as a library.

FreeBSD has a moratorium on importing new GPL code to base, and especially the kernel.

FreeBSD 12 will ship completely GPL free

Maybe a clone would be in order. It would add some code diversity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com