Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of Basis Technology Corporation nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Dead-time is the period of time in which single-photons detectors are recovering from an avalanche(the process wich amplifies the current induced by the photon), and can not detect another photon. This time was neglible to the speed QKD was being tested, but the researchers now have found that it is a limiting issue with current improvements.
It's just that conventional detectors made of silicon are showing to be not useful beyond some transmission speed.
The BSD license alone doesn't give you the right, but the author stating that it is a dual-licensed work might or not. If it doesn't, than dual-licensing doesn't make sense since the licenses are incompatibles. I don't believe that someone who intended to have it's work merged in the Linus repository would "dual-license" code in the interpretation of Theo de Raadt of what 'alternatively' means, and what a right on a derivative work on dual-licensed code means.
Call me a troll but it seems Theo is trying to nitpick on grammar to force changes back into the OpenBSD kernel. Contradicting the "BSD feel".
And there is no hypocrisies on the Linux(NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO FSF by the way) side: the GPLv2 spirit in granting the 4 levels of freedom o the user are untouchable in this issue. License compatibility and other "non-free" projects were never taken into consideration. Theo can shout "I told you how GPL was wrong", but never shout "hypocrite".
(being redundant due to another "informative" redundant post)
People must remember that there are two cases happening in the openhal case:
There is a BSD-only code released by Ryek, and there is a dual licensed code released by Sam.
And Theo makes one little setence on that and go lumping legality with morality.
In the Ryek case Ethics "doesn't matter" because it is a clear violation of licensing.(Unless someone
pushes for "Fair Use", wich it obviously isn't).
The dual license case, Theo is trolling and nitpicking on semantics of the well known, and previous
known to work, case of dual licensing.
Does Linus sell have a sideline selling PCs? And he uses some DRM to stop users modifying the software he supplies? What? From http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223/:
In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally
would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their
ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their
legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this
is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where
I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it
myself.
If you ask me, that is complete bullshit. In the specific case, Linus is not conveying software to his children. Not even in a TiVo way: the computer end up being his. He can take it away if the kids don't want to do homework, or brush teeth. It ends up being private use, wich GPLv3 permits him to do whatever he wants.
Reading that makes me feel that either he doesn't understand the license or is using subtle falacies to pursuit an agenda(hello mister obvious).
GPL v3 applies to software (re)licensed under GPL v3. Novell/Microsft agreement "only" means that they will have to fork and mantain GPL v2 software by themselves before copyright holders/assignee relicense them to GPL v3. Novell doesn't own most of software it distribute^W convey, so it can't make agreements restricting license changes on stuff that it doesn't own.
Short answer: GNU Software has copyright assigned to Free Software Foundation, and there was no agreement/deal between FSF and Microsoft or FSF and Novell.
Slashdot Mirror
License
Copyright © 2004 Basis Technology Corp.
All Rights Reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of Basis Technology Corporation nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
No mention to the GPLDead-time is the period of time in which single-photons detectors are recovering from an avalanche(the process wich amplifies the current induced by the photon), and can not detect another photon. This time was neglible to the speed QKD was being tested, but the researchers now have found that it is a limiting issue with current improvements. It's just that conventional detectors made of silicon are showing to be not useful beyond some transmission speed.
The BSD license alone doesn't give you the right, but the author stating that it is a dual-licensed work might or not. If it doesn't, than dual-licensing doesn't make sense since the licenses are incompatibles. I don't believe that someone who intended to have it's work merged in the Linus repository would "dual-license" code in the interpretation of Theo de Raadt of what 'alternatively' means, and what a right on a derivative work on dual-licensed code means.
Call me a troll but it seems Theo is trying to nitpick on grammar to force changes back into the OpenBSD kernel. Contradicting the "BSD feel".
And there is no hypocrisies on the Linux(NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO FSF by the way) side: the GPLv2 spirit in granting the 4 levels of freedom o the user are untouchable in this issue. License compatibility and other "non-free" projects were never taken into consideration. Theo can shout "I told you how GPL was wrong", but never shout "hypocrite".
(being redundant due to another "informative" redundant post)
People must remember that there are two cases happening in the openhal case: There is a BSD-only code released by Ryek, and there is a dual licensed code released by Sam. And Theo makes one little setence on that and go lumping legality with morality. In the Ryek case Ethics "doesn't matter" because it is a clear violation of licensing.(Unless someone pushes for "Fair Use", wich it obviously isn't). The dual license case, Theo is trolling and nitpicking on semantics of the well known, and previous known to work, case of dual licensing.
No true, he marries Hermione and have 3 kids.
If you ask me, that is complete bullshit. In the specific case, Linus is not conveying software to his children. Not even in a TiVo way: the computer end up being his. He can take it away if the kids don't want to do homework, or brush teeth. It ends up being private use, wich GPLv3 permits him to do whatever he wants.
Reading that makes me feel that either he doesn't understand the license or is using subtle falacies to pursuit an agenda(hello mister obvious).
You mean like ebooks have replaced deadwood and ink books?
GPL v3 applies to software (re)licensed under GPL v3. Novell/Microsft agreement "only" means that they will have to fork and mantain GPL v2 software by themselves before copyright holders/assignee relicense them to GPL v3. Novell doesn't own most of software it distribute^W convey, so it can't make agreements restricting license changes on stuff that it doesn't own.
Short answer: GNU Software has copyright assigned to Free Software Foundation, and there was no agreement/deal between FSF and Microsoft or FSF and Novell.