Sun Submits New License for Open Source Approval 218
Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Sun has submitted their Common Development and Distribution License to the Open Source Initiative for approval as an Open Source license. It appears that this license is what Sun plans to release Solaris under according to an article at news.com.com.com. Of particular note is: 'The CDDL is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, since it contains requirements that are not in the GPL,' Claire Giordano of Sun's CDDL team said in its submission."
ns (Score:2, Funny)
Re:ns (Score:2)
Nope - you can't have spaces in domain names.
Re:ns (Score:2)
Re:ns (Score:2)
Ironic how that wikipedia article does indeed get widened, tested on safari and firefox
Re:ns (Score:2)
SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, egg, and SPAM?
Are you sure it isn't SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, baked beans, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, and SPAM?
first post? (Score:4, Interesting)
When Solaris 8 source was released, it was not exaclty open source, and did not last long at all.
Re:first post? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am glad to see sun going in to an open source direction, but how long will it last this time?
When Solaris 8 source was released, it was not exaclty open source, and did not last long at all.
Part of the problem is also the compiler. I think it was a big mistake when UNIX vendors unbundled the compiler from their distributions. Half of the Linux success is based on having a fully configured development environment right out of the box.
Some how I don't think Solaris 10 compiles with gcc and since
Re:first post? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the 64 bit kernel and libraries for Solaris 10 AMD64 are compiled with a modified version of gcc3.4.3 - which is shipped with Solaris 10 (on both sparc and x86).
- Bart
Re:first post? (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that Sun is schizophrenic wrt open source - one minute they love it, the next it is stealing jobs or doomed to fail or whatever. Also, I remember to get ahold of the solaris 8 source you had to sign a contract and couldn't do anything other than look at the code - no local changes, certainly no distribution or discussion with anyone (even within my company) who had not signed the contract. I wound checking their libc source a couple times to verify 2.6/2.8 compatibility of some software and that is about it. That license made it nearly useless.
Re:first post? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source ? Not this license (Score:5, Informative)
The MPL requires that anyone using third party patented material declares it so that you know if its contaminated and non-free as a contributed. The Sun license allows them to slip anything the like into the code then smile as a third party sues people for their contribution.
In general the changes are mundane (Software for Code etc) or in some cases quite sensible - legal jurisdiction, simplifying the definition of creator, but that one change is quite evil on first reading
I have the same schizo feeling (Score:2)
Why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, microsoft's "shared source" is "open source of some sort", but the restrictions on that license make it essentially worthless.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Isn't that one of the argument points between "Open Source" and "Free"?
Re:Why should they? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Why should they? (Score:3, Informative)
I can't speak for bersl2, but I think you may have mistaken his point.
When Stallman originated (ie, named) the Free Software movement in '84, he did it for political reasons. Later, ESR and others said that if people want this stuff to be accepted in corporate society, they need to focus on practical and not political ideals. Political statements make suits nervous. (If you were on slashdot, certain Usenet groups, etc in '98 or so, you saw the discussions.)
One big sticking point was the name. "Free so
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Interesting)
The main difference from what I see is that if you claim that the software infringes one of your patents, you lose you rights to use or distribute the software unless you agree to pay royalties to the author of the software. That sounds like a good thing to me.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
The Apache License says that you can't use any patents (if they exist) which the Apache source code uses, if you sue them on patent infringement. You can still use the software if no patents are used.
Re:Why should they? (Score:4, Insightful)
> And if you cannot freely reditribute your modifications to others, I -for one- question how "open" such source is.
What has this to do with the CDDL at http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html ? Perhaps you should actually read it, especially section 2.2a.
You don't have to question how open it is, go check the OSD at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
Re:Why should they? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Has this (GPLv3) been released? (I have not been paying attention to the new GPL since I assume(d) a new release would be followed by lots of publicity.)
If yes, then what does it say about patents?
If no, then how do you know what it will say? Are you saying that if the new Sun license and the GPLv3 both include the word "patent", then they are "ethically" or "morally" equivalent?
Re:Why should they? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is copyright, there are licenses, there are patents, there are export laws. Let them all be separate, don't conflate them.
But that's mostly my own taste, apart from this quote from opensource.org:
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
HTH,
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
D'oh. Did you read the summary? If Sun is submitting the license to folks who 'certify' Open Source licenses, they clearly have intention to get it through... which means that distributability does exist, similar to other approved licenses (Apache, GPL, BSD, MIT etc). Why would they otherwise waste their time, if it didn't look and smell like an actual Open Source license?
Now, also keep in mind that many people consider GPL to NOT allow one to "freely distribute" modifications, since it does add restrictions under which distribution is allowed. At least if "freely" means in whatever shape or form. Most licenses (even Free and Open Source ones) restrict (re/sub-)licensing in some way.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
What's to prevent you from distributing a set of patches? After all, that's basically how BSD got started - before 4.4BSD, you needed an AT&T license to legally run BSD.
Sun's move follows what RMS wanted from "free software" before the advent of the GPL - the ability to go in and fix broken code.
OTOH, it probably would be a bad idea for Linux o
did you even read it? (Score:2)
Section 2.2: "Conditioned upon Your compliance with Section 3.1 below and subject to third party intellectual property claims, each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license"
Wow. Instead of stopping you from distributing it, they actually explicitly say you can.
Go away.
Re:did you even read it? (Score:2)
There is nothing even remotely resembling an explicit statement allowing redistribution in the quotation you cite there, so pack up your bitchy little tude and fuck off back to the bog you crawled out of.
Thank You.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Re:Why should they? (Score:3, Informative)
-russ
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
At least with either license, you're free to hand out any changes you may have made to the source code.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Re:Why should they? (Score:3, Insightful)
My best guess: they want to have their cake and eat it too, by attempting to connive people into contributing to their effectively proprietary codebase. They also certainly want to eliminate the possibility that features that distinguish Sun's OS, like their new filesystem, don't end up in Linux. Could they be enticing the BSD kernels to absorb them?
What happens if Sun's cool features (they do have some ne
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
If their license was compatible with the BSDL then it would be compatible with the GPL too.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
From the CDDL [sun.com]:
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I sure hope you meant crown jewels ....
stop this nonsense (Score:2)
Yes, there is something "bad" about it. It's not "bad" as in "badly behaved" or "bad dog" or "bad person", it's "bad" as in "bad idea" or "bad legal advice" or "bad business".
Why should they?
Because, presumably, they are open sourcing it in order to achieve something. If they pick a license that doesn't satisfy potential users, then they aren't going to achieve that goal.
Not having read their proposed lic
Re:Why should they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that Slowaris x86's biggest weakness is hardware support, yeah there is something bad about Sun not choosing the GPL. But it is bad for Sun and their users, not those of us already in the GNU/Linux camp.
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Porting device drivers isn't just a recompile, of course. There is sufficient work involved in using the Linux device drivers with the Solaris kernel that the idea, even if considered by Sun, was never really a deciding factor.
That said, Solaris 9's hardware support is, while not extensive as Linux, pretty good. People forget that most uses of Solaris are obviously in the server space, and in systems like I that I don't usually use the crappy "local computer store" hardware that Linux so ably supports. When you consider what you already want to build your server with given the application, Solaris tends to support that hardware fairly well.
We just built a dual opteron server with a SCSI RAID controller.. all fairly new and bleeding edge hardware. Solaris 9 installs just fine and supports all the hardware properly.
That said, do I really care that it doesn't support the $35 AC97 based sound card I have in a box somewhere in my storage closet?
No... and neither do the vast majority of Solaris users.
Re:Why should they? (Score:3, Informative)
Sun like to talk about how Solaris scales up to big iron. But scalability goes both ways. Linux has been so successful because it doesn't just scale up to the high end, it also scales down to the low end. At work we use Linux across our cheap old desktops, our beefy servers, and our
Re:Why should they? (Score:2, Insightful)
The next time someone brags about a sun box being able to pull RAM chips out while online, I am just going to say a cluster allows me to bring the whole thing down. Not to mention the sun hardware that allows me to pull RAM out probably cost $20,000.
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Try running Solaris x86 on desktop machines, you'll find the hardware support drops off very rapdily. Then again, this often isn't a problem as Solaris is used as a server OS. Like you said, soundcard support for Solaris isn't a problem!
Re:Why should they? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
If a company can just take my code and throw it into their router, not submitting changes then that is also grounds for my rejection of its use.
Not saying this is the CDDL just that those two points are the main things I care about and any money or time I put in has to have tho
Re:Why should they? (Score:2)
Is there? Claire Giordano of Sun's CDDL team said , in the submission, that it was of particular note that the license is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, and you think she meant to imply there was something wrong with that? Doesn't seem too likely. If she thinks it's noteworthy then is it really unreasonable for other to comment on it too?
I'm assuming it won't allow anyone to resell the code.
From
Re:Why should they? (Score:3)
The differences could prove interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The differences could prove interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The differences could prove interesting... (Score:2)
CDDL is based on Mozilla Public License 1.1 (Score:5, Informative)
counter-disclosure: I read about this [supercat.org] on CNet, just like everyone else, and I don't know any more about this than is available at Sun's CDDL site [sun.com]. Also, I don't really work anywhere near the Solaris group.
The CDDL is just a refinement of the MPL-- and I've read the redline diffs, and there doesn't seem to be anything sinister or extra-restrictive about the changes.
The MPL is nice, in that it is propagative but not viral. That is, if you distribute a modified binary you have to distribute the source for your modifications, but you can use MPL-licensed code in a larger project without any effect at all on the license of the larger project.
The only reason GPL compatibility is even an issue is that there was some hope that Solaris code could be picked up and used in Linux-- which I really think was pretty optimistic. Techniques learned from the Solaris source may be transferrable, though, and I think still will be as long as the Solaris source is truly open.
Re:CDDL is based on Mozilla Public License 1.1 (Score:2)
I have onether question.
Recently MS and Sun signed an IP cross licensing deal. Presumably this means that both MS and SUN are in a position to sue people for patent infringement.
H
Re:CDDL is based on Mozilla Public License 1.1 (Score:2)
Linux is the competition.
"That's a serious question because it seems to me if you don't want linux (or freebsd) to benefit from solaris code why did you open source it in the first place. The answer is probably something like "because we want people to code for solaris without getting paid"."
Linux kernel code is virtually never used outside of the Linux kernel. *BSD can't use it, for example, and interviews with developers have indicated th
Re:CDDL is based on Mozilla Public License 1.1 (Score:4, Informative)
Sun's not afriad of that ... Sun's afraid of the other direction not working. For example... say Solaris has whiz-bang feature A. Some eager developer ports A to Linux. Some better developer makes A v1.1, with some bug fixes and interesting new features. Everyone decides A v1.1 is really cool... except Sun, which can't bring the code back into Solaris because it's GPL and OpenSolaris isn't.
Basically, it's a license that permits redistribution, but always permits Sun to fold back code changes into a proprietary Solaris product. Kinda like StarOffice & OpenOffice...
Similarities and differences to MPL (Score:2)
What Sun probably did not do, was triple license for compatibility, as Mozilla did (you can use alternative licenses of GPL or LGPL if you choose). This makes the work much less useful to outsiders who are not part of the Sun mainstream.
Admittedly this weakens the terms, but it shows much greater goodwill as opposed to code that cannot be easily incorporated in GPLed works in spite of the GPL code that keeps showing up in proximity to Solaris.
In fairness, Linux is also not triple licensed to serve Solari
Re:Similarities and differences to MPL (Score:3, Insightful)
OpenOffice.org is Dual SISSL/LGPL.
I wouldn't doubt solaris being the same.
Re:This stinks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but not because I work at Sun. Like I said, I don't have anything to do with this stuff.
So, besides distributing patches to software, we can start distributing patches to licenses as well?
The provision you quoted is nothing new, and I really don't see what the big deal is. From the GPL [gnu.org]:
Re:The differences could prove interesting... (Score:2)
Re:The differences could prove interesting... (Score:2)
Re:The differences could prove interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
This constitues a "further restriction" on the recipient of the software beyond the restrictions set forth by the GPL, and is thus incompatible with section 6 of the GPL.
These sorts of patent amnesty clauses are generally considered a Good Thing, and are common in many newer open so
Changes that Sun Would Want (Score:5, Informative)
Actually looking at the license, I see that it is based on the Mozilla license (MPL), which addresses the two issues I noted. Sun's changes remove the part about being covered by a future version of the license, and remove some notice requirements and clarify a few things that are unclear or poorly stated in the original MPL.
The license may well be GPL 3 compatible, since Stallman has made noises about wanting to clear up the patent protection stuff. You'd really need to get a lawyer's opinon on that, though, after the GPL 3 has been released.
Re:Changes that Sun Would Want (Score:2)
That would be nice, but I wouldn't bet on it. The number one requirement for GPL 3 is/was (I think) that it be compatible with GPL 2. And since FSF has said that current patent clauses in other Open Source licenses make them GPL (2) incompatible, there seems to be a problem?
However, I hope I'm wrong, and GPL 3 would be more compatible with other commonly used OS licenses.
Re:Changes that Sun Would Want (Score:2)
Yet another? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yet another? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems not, because they presumably had to modify it to include the fact that the license grant is "subject to third party intellectual property claims".
Which probably makes it next to useless, as I believe Solaris is based on Sys V code, which means that those 3rd party rights might belong to either SCO or Novell, it's tricky to tell which at this stage.
Re:Yet another? (Score:2)
Let's give Sun a kiss and a kick (Score:3, Insightful)
A kick - because they still prefer business. Novell and Mandrake can somehow make it with GPL - maybe Sun should also try?
Re:Let's give Sun a kiss and a kick (Score:2)
Those savages!
The GPL is out-dated (Score:5, Interesting)
Most new OSI-approved licenses seem to cover patents in some form. There's even talk about a new version [eweek.com] of the GPL that will, but as of now there's nothing.
Using the GPL would have earned them a kick in my book.
Of course, if you (or anyone else here for that matter) are complaining without actually knowing the rationale behind the license, you should go take a look at Sun's detailed description [sun.com] of the license.
Re:The GPL is out-dated (Score:2, Insightful)
Most new OSI-approved licenses seem to be ill-considered.
Of course, if you (or anyone else here for that matter) are complaining without actually knowing the implications of this license, you should consider the number of peopl
let's do neither (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let's do neither (Score:2)
Re:let's do neither (Score:2)
Companies are not bound by ethics, in fact acting ethically can get a company sued by it's shareholders if it results in less profits.
Today Sun is thinking about opening up solaris, tommorow they could file a lawsuit against everybody who read the source code and then worked
Re:let's do neither (Score:2)
I think it all comes down to licenses. Licenses like the SCL are unacceptable and open you up to lawsuits, so one shouldn't even download SCL'ed code. Licenses like the GPL are as well-tested as any license in this industry, so even when Sun or Microsoft release something under it, it's probably OK (with some precautions like documenting the re
Re:let's do neither (Score:2)
I agree, but would add "Also don't believe any legal fictions that tries to give corporations legal personhood."
Re:let's do neither (Score:2)
Sure companies have their self interest at heart, so do people, do you mail 2/3 of your meals to africa? I think not, they need to remain profitable or they won't be around to do good deeds.
For large companies money isn't really an objective, they simply want to continue pursuing research for the good of the public.
Open office I can't see as being profitable except by breaking the
Re:let's do neither (Score:2)
You are playing word games, but it amounts to the same thing: you cannot trust businesses, you can only trust individual people. And since the people constituting a business can change overnight, you can't even trust a business based on the people that constitute it.
As a business owner and someone who has served as a corporation Chief Operating Officer and Director, let me state, catagorically, from experience:
Well, even as CEO, you then apparently never gr
Re:Let's give Sun a kiss and a kick (Score:2, Offtopic)
Does Sun make more from software or hardware? Last I checked, they are still a major - and successful - hardware vendor, complete with service contracts, etc.
Re:GPL isn't only fo religious fanatics (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Some people care about doing things legally. Free/Open Source Software provides a legal means to be productive on a computer with a tight budget. I really wish GPL fanatics would realize that the general public DOESN'T CARE about software "wanting to be free" and DOESN'T CARE about developers not wanting their work to be usurped for corporate profit. They want high quality, usable software for free. Period. They want
Yay, they addressed the patent issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that makes me happy. It seems to say that if you hold the Sun license, you can't patent-shakedown anybody in the Sun community. I'll buy that; getting this kind of license adopted by many people is probably the only way to end the horror. I'd be interested to see whether Microsoft gets all ornery about this license.
Of course, I'm also interested to see how much I'll get flamed by even implying support for a license besides the GNU GPL.
Re:Yay, they addressed the patent issue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yay, they addressed the patent issue. (Score:2)
The IBM public license is another example of a license that is incompatible with the GPL because it tries to protect against patent claims.
Re:I think it's a horrible idea (Score:2)
Re:I think it's a horrible idea (Score:3, Informative)
You cannot give up such right without actually giving those persons a patent license. You may have to be prepared to cease distributing the software within 60 days if you do, though. I don't think this will bother many people.
I've read the licence but (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it now possible to put Sun's funky new filesystem straight into Linux, or does someone have to rewrite it?
When they say not-GPL-compatible, I assume no, but I'd like someone with a better grasp of this to confirm it.
Re:Filesystems, yes. (Score:2)
let's wait for a careful review (Score:2, Insightful)
(Of course, the license is only on Solaris, so it doesn't really matter that much anyway. If Sun used this for Java, it would matter more.)
Based on Mozilla Public License (Score:5, Informative)
A summary of the changes [sun.com], including why they felt the MPL didn't give them entirely what they wanted - they make it clear that they didn't want to create yet another license.
A details description of the differences [sun.com].
In their submission [crynwr.com] they also say:
Theyre defending IP (Score:2)
As for taking improvements to Linux, I wonder if Linux can be forked into a more restrictive License, which doesnt go ag
Re:Theyre defending IP (Score:3, Informative)
In a word: No.
Anything that imposed additional conditions to the GPL (which any forked version is still covered by) would violate the licence. In order to be able to mix GNU/Linux code with Solaris code, according to the Solaris licence the code has to be non-redistributable, but according to the GPL, GNU/Linux must be freely dis
Re:Theyre defending IP (Score:2)
Only if every single contributor agrees. In other words no.
My quick interpretation (IANAL, etc.) (Score:4, Interesting)
Contributors (who modify the Initial Developer's code) grant You the same rights. This applies to the whole work with modifications, or just the modifications themselves.
You must provide the License text when you distribute Your software, including the modifications. If you distribute executable code, You must make the source code available.
All code remains under this version of the license. You (essentially) can't modify the license. Sun could revise the license, but it isn't retroactive unless specified.
You can include softare with this License in a "Larger Work" that's under a different license, as long as doing so doesn't break this license.
No Warranty, Limitation of Liability, jurisdiction, etc.
Contracts, Copyrights, Compatibility, Hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the big difference is that Sun's licence goes beyond a simple copyright licence (like the GPL and LGPL). Sun's license is a contract. There are pros and cons of both. A copyright license cannot offer patent licencing. Here, Sun is giving you the rights to use the software even if it infringes on some of their patents. Now, it would seem obvious that if someone opensourced software they owned that used a patent they owned that they were letting you use that patent without royalties, but that isn't the case (legally). A company could GPL-licence software that used a patent they owned and then sue users and distributers later for infringing on that patent. It would be a terrible, but legal, thing to do.
The downside to it being a contract is that contract law varies GREATLY from country to country. This is why the FSF has tried to keep the GPL/LGPL tied to copyright law only. Copyrights, while they vary between countries, don't vary as much as contracts do. This means that there could be legal complications based on geography.
Even Linus Torvalds says that the GPL isn't a perfect license. In my work, I know that it isn't since I develop web scripts which, if GPL-licenced, would allow people to build amazing capabilities into it and never share the source they used for their site. GPL-incompatible doesn't mean bad. In fact, it can be good. The Affero licence (which is the GPL plus a provision that if you use it to power your site you have to offer that code to visitors of the site - since one might make cool modifications to power a site and then never actually distribute it).
The GPL is a great licence, but it isn't perfect. Right now, the GPL 3 is being written and if it is written to include things like patent grants and such, it would be compatible with this licence. Most people, including me, had hoped that this would be a big present for the Linux community and so there is a lot of disappointment at a GPL-incompatible license. That is to be expected. It would have been great if it were GPL compatible. The amount of code-sharing that could have happened would have been amazing. Of course, the GPL 3 might make that code-sharing available (I'm unable to ever give up hope) and it's still good to have another good opensource operating system to compliment the BSDs and Linuxes.
Re:Contracts, Copyrights, Compatibility, Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not, I am pretty sure the court would consider such an action to be in bad faith, or failing to mitigate infringement, or willfully contributing to the infringement.
I hope it's not GPL compatible... (Score:2)
That said I'm waiting for tolls to popping-up from their Firefox browsers to say MPL is to restrictive.
That said, where did the idea come from that just because Solaris was going to be open-sourced it needed to be incorporated into Linux?!
It is not only about code sharing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you RTFA... (Score:2, Insightful)
Authors of source have the right to license their work however they like, whether it be GPL, BSD, CPL, MPL, etc. Diversity in licenses is a good thing, but that doesn't make the GPL evil.
-ragnar
Re:If you RTFA... (Score:2)
I'm not claiming the GPL is evil. (Nor, in fact, am I claiming Microsoft's EULA's are evil). I am claiming that the GPL is overused, that too many GPL advocates see "Open Source" and assume GPL the complain when it's not GPL, when Open Source actually encompasses a far broader range of licenses.
Re:If you RTFA... (Score:2)
Yeah, I can write a patch to the linux kernel (or any other GPL project) and license it however I want. But for anyone to make use of my patch, they'll have to make use of GPLed code as well - what, you expect me to believe that my patch will cleanly apply to the BSD kernel?
If an author contributes code to a large GPL codebase, he is de facto required to GPL it. Sure he
Re:If you RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling or just confused. I think I agree with the poster who said that you're just an anti-GPL zealot. But in case you're truly misinformed, I'll give enlightening you a stab.
How exactly is this a very important point? If you are contributing to someone else's code, you of course need to make your code available using a compatible license. For example, if I decide to contribute a patch to Mozilla or OpenSolaris, I will have to provide my work to them under a license compatible with their codebase, if I want them to be able to distribute it.
This has nothing whatever to do with the GPL. I'm not sure what your point is. If I decide to contribute a patch to say, some component of OpenBSD, I'll need to provide said patch under the BSD license. So this point trivially applies to every single license.
Ok, now we're out in "What the fuck?" land. If you write a patch for the linux kernel, you're contributing to a GPL'd project. The only people that can benefit directly from this patch are people that use Linux. Presumably, if you're hacking the Linux kernel, you yourself use Linux. I mean, if I hack software package A, and improve it in some way, only people that use software package A are going to see the fruits of my labor.
Maybe you meant something like, you write something complex, say, a cryptographic algorithm, and submit it as a patch to the linux kernel. Then, the BSD guys (who also would like to have said algorithm in their kernel) are forced to reimplement it, instead of just taking your patch and hacking it.
Now, if that is what you mean (and I can't be sure, because that's not what you said) then you're wrong, quite simply. You can license your patch to the linux kernel under a BSD license. The linux guys can still use it. And so can the BSD guys. So again, it's just a matter of you (the author) choosing the license you want to distribute your code under.
Now, copyright law covers distribution of code only, so you could even write a patch to the Linux kernel and release it under some GPL-incompatible license -- no problem! But the Linux guys wouldn't be able to incorporate your patch, because then they would be distributing it under the terms of the GPL, which is incompatible with your license. But you could still make your patch available for free at some other source; and if a user downloaded your patch, they could apply it to the Linux kernel themselves and use it, and it would be completely legal, as long as they didn't try to redistribute your patch under the terms of the GPL.
It comes down to exactly what the GP said: the GPL prevents you from relicensing other people's code arbitrarily. But for your own code, you can license it however you want, and you can do this regardless of whether your code is a full product or just a patch. You can even distribute it under a bunch of different licenses, if it suits you. It's your code, you're free to license it however the hell you want.