I must've missed the memo about projects having a theme song. I'm both repulsed and intrigued by this story, both the content and the fact that it is deemed news-worthy enough to make it onto Slashdot.
Re:Living in the past...
by
Dahan
·
· Score: 0, Troll
But the "new" license didn't change any of the terms. The only change in the "new" license was the addition of this sentence: "Yes, this means that derivitive [sic] or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent."
I linked to the original license they imported (note that it's revision 1.1), which they had for 5 years before deciding it was unacceptable. It stated that "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors." I see nothing in that that implies that derivative or modified works were permitted. As Darren tried to tell them (apparently without success), the change was a clarification, not a change to the actual terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I must've missed the memo about projects having a theme song. I'm both repulsed and intrigued by this story, both the content and the fact that it is deemed news-worthy enough to make it onto Slashdot.
I linked to the original license they imported (note that it's revision 1.1), which they had for 5 years before deciding it was unacceptable. It stated that "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors." I see nothing in that that implies that derivative or modified works were permitted. As Darren tried to tell them (apparently without success), the change was a clarification, not a change to the actual terms.