Did you actually read the license? I don't think so.
"# 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 the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
So you can use it freely, but you cannot strip the license. Why is this so hard to understand for Linux people? Isn't it enough just to use it? No they want the GPL mark on top of it too.
And furthermore:
http://openbsd.org/policy.html
So just leaving the license intact isn't freedom anymore? According to this reasoning, the GPL is pure slavery:-)
>if Theo threatened to sue Mr Moglen or anyone else over these sorts of things
Jesus what a nonsense, it's about the *possibility* and hasn't anything to do with Moglen in terms of the violated license.
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Clarifying_the_ath5k_Licensing
>Theo seems to be claiming that you somehow have to follow both sets of terms
And this doesn't matter, because Sam Leffler, the original author, already clarified it, because he is the author.
But there is code from an OpenBSD author too included and it's just this BSD style license.
According to RMS the GPL isn't opensource. And he made a very clear statement some days ago,
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;3
"Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats.
Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him. "
And it's Theos right for self-defense against such people.
>but public relations is not in his skill set.
Yes, thou shall not criticize Linux and the GPL, if you aren't part of it. But if you're part of it badmouthing other developers e.g. of FreeBSD (idiots) or Gnome (interface Nazis) is the usual way for the public relations of Linux (your holiness Linus). Hypocrites... Slashdot too is just interested in posting BSD news, if there is something to badmouth it. It's self-defense against hypocrites! Real freedom != disrespectful behaviour.
>If you released something under the BSD license and someone made a closed-source commercial program out of it
No because it's not a relicensing.
>The current 3 clause BSD license allows someone to release derived works under the GPL (or under closed-source commercial license)
Wrong! You do not relicense the work within a commercial application, you're acting within the boundaries of the BSDL!
>allows someone to release derived works under the GPL
That's nonsense like the former saying. You can use it freely in GPL work, but you cannot *relicense* the work - that's quiet a big difference. Use it, don't abuse it. Pay the respect to the developer and leave your hands off the license, it doesn't make a difference for your GPL work, but you pay some respect for the freedom granted by the original author. With a big nasty copyleft, Linux would be dead in the water. Do you know the TCP/IP stack? Yes and guess who used it? The Linux TCP/IP stack is a derivative of it. Nice, isn't it?
'Something similar' if you don't know the facts.It was just useless, stripped code, uploaded to CVS to use it as base for the work. But I understand it's slashdot, Linux zealots are out of school, and...
Slashdot Mirror
>stable as hell You made by day. Another one of urban legends.
Okay I call you, just read the article.
Did you actually read the license? I don't think so. "# 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 the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php So you can use it freely, but you cannot strip the license. Why is this so hard to understand for Linux people? Isn't it enough just to use it? No they want the GPL mark on top of it too. And furthermore: http://openbsd.org/policy.html So just leaving the license intact isn't freedom anymore? According to this reasoning, the GPL is pure slavery
>if Theo threatened to sue Mr Moglen or anyone else over these sorts of things Jesus what a nonsense, it's about the *possibility* and hasn't anything to do with Moglen in terms of the violated license. http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Clarifying_the_ath5k_Licensing
>Theo seems to be claiming that you somehow have to follow both sets of terms And this doesn't matter, because Sam Leffler, the original author, already clarified it, because he is the author. But there is code from an OpenBSD author too included and it's just this BSD style license.
According to RMS the GPL isn't opensource. And he made a very clear statement some days ago, http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;3 "Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him. " And it's Theos right for self-defense against such people.
This is nonsense, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html it wasn't per se forbidden, but the 'problem' evolved during the years. >the Linux stack was written from scratch. Even most developers of Linux do know better. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-networking-stack/?S_TACT=105AGX59&S_CMP=GR&ca=dgr-lnxw07LinuxNetStack But apart from that, Free/Net/OpenBSD are opensource derivatives of original UNIX. Even then if there isn't any code from original UNIX in it anymore. http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html Urband legends spread by Linux community to gain somewhat an independency from other project, because they have a huge problem paying someone the respect.
>but public relations is not in his skill set. Yes, thou shall not criticize Linux and the GPL, if you aren't part of it. But if you're part of it badmouthing other developers e.g. of FreeBSD (idiots) or Gnome (interface Nazis) is the usual way for the public relations of Linux (your holiness Linus). Hypocrites ... Slashdot too is just interested in posting BSD news, if there is something to badmouth it. It's self-defense against hypocrites! Real freedom != disrespectful behaviour.
>If you released something under the BSD license and someone made a closed-source commercial program out of it No because it's not a relicensing. >The current 3 clause BSD license allows someone to release derived works under the GPL (or under closed-source commercial license) Wrong! You do not relicense the work within a commercial application, you're acting within the boundaries of the BSDL! >allows someone to release derived works under the GPL That's nonsense like the former saying. You can use it freely in GPL work, but you cannot *relicense* the work - that's quiet a big difference. Use it, don't abuse it. Pay the respect to the developer and leave your hands off the license, it doesn't make a difference for your GPL work, but you pay some respect for the freedom granted by the original author. With a big nasty copyleft, Linux would be dead in the water. Do you know the TCP/IP stack? Yes and guess who used it? The Linux TCP/IP stack is a derivative of it. Nice, isn't it?
So if your are not with us, you're against us? This is the so-called freedom. A mere joke ...
'Something similar' if you don't know the facts.It was just useless, stripped code, uploaded to CVS to use it as base for the work. But I understand it's slashdot, Linux zealots are out of school, and ...