Hey, that's not bad. But is a derivative work a modification? If it isn't then you have no right to distribute derivative works as the BSD license does not explicitly say that you are allowed to create derivative works. Otherwise, nice spot.
Yeah no. I'm making a legal argument. You're making a nonsense argument. You are not permitted to make a derived work from a copyrighted work without permission. The BSD license doesn't give you permission. That's it. Of course, the *point* of making something BSD licensed is that you don't give a shit about what people do with the code.. you don't want to be sued.. so in 99% of cases you won't run into trouble.
hehe. Nothing permits you to add more copyright notices, conditions and disclaimers. That's the way copyright law works. Anything that is not permitted is prohibited.
8.1
(e) what is the difference between a "modification" and a "derivative work"? If they are the same, the scope of the BSD's licensing requirement will be very similar to that of the GPL. Note also that the BSD only permits the distribution of modifications, so if there exist derivative works which are not modifications the BSD does not address whether they can be distributed or even created - and in the world of licensing that is the same as a prohibition. Compare the GPL which expressly (but conditionally) permits the creation and distribution of derivative works;
So suppose, Microsoft takes some BSD licensed code and incorporates it into Internet Explorer. They put in the documentation "this program contains software which is BSD licensed, here's the license", etc. Have they done all they are required to do? No. Either Internet Explorer is a modification of this BSD licensed code, in which case, it much be distributed under the BSD license.. or Internet Explorer is a derivative work of this BSD licensed code, and a derivative work is something different to a "modification" in which case it cannot be distributed *at all*.
Does mean we can legally reverse engineer that binary to see what proprietary extensions they have made to the original BSD licensed code however.. and, if we were doing decompilation, the resulting "source code" would be BSD licensed too.
When Microsoft or some other proprietary software company that wants to use BSD licensed code, and actually has lawyers on payroll, decide on the wording for their license, it always reads like this:
Copyright (c) 2003-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
[Copy of the EULA goes here]
This software contains components from XXX which are available under this license:
[Copy of the BSD license goes here]
So they are not relicensing the BSD licensed components. They are providing those parts of the software under the license of which they were required and they are doing all they are required to use that code by providing the license in the documentation. The power of this is that the BSD license doesn't require the source code to be released to the user (and Brendan Scott, the author of the paper, recognises this in section 7.3) so the company can keep their modifications secret.
Re:Can Linux Virtualization Get Any More Fragmente
on
Virtualbox Goes OSS
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Competition is great. I love competition. But there's this other thing, called co-operation, and us folks in the open source world, we're supposed to be better at co-operation than we are at competition. If just a few of these groups would work together (instead of just pinching stuff from qemu, as most of them do) the technology would be a whole lot better.
Can Linux Virtualization Get Any More Fragmented?
on
Virtualbox Goes OSS
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
My God. We have: Xen, KVM, VMWare, QEMU (with and without KQEMU), User Mode Linux, Win4Lin, Bochs, and now VirtualBox. I'm sure there's others I've missed too.
hint: My car, TV, microwave, washing machine, digicam and a kazillion other gadgets fall into that category All of which you are free to take to a third party to have repaired. On the other hand.........
Last time I checked, AOL doesn't have an OS, although it can feel that way. I know I didn't define "it" but I figured I was talking to fellow human beings that didn't need a definition of every preposition I used in my statement. Just for the robots out there: it == provide a free service for mailing operating system installation media to anyone who requests such service from a web site. Now back to cleaning the kitchen Robbie.
Huh? I am an Aussie, and I'm tell you that Fosters is the most unpopular beer in Australia, much as Bud is the most unpopular beer in the US. The marketing might say otherwise, but there's a limit to how much they can bend reality.
It's one tenth of one percent of system resources.. get some perspective. Running a KDE app on my GNOME desktop is still kind of ugly though, it would be nice if we could standardize on themes.
Uhuh. Nextstep isn't a standard.. OpenStep is the standard, which emerged from NextStep, FootStep and the other competing APIs of Objective-C based workstation GUIs.. not to mention that these APIs were also, and continue to, compete with non-Objective-C based APIs. The fact that we are where we are on the desktop is because of all this healthy competition, not in spite of it.
now is the time for Canadians to get out there and tell their elected representatives that they don't want US copyright. Do it now, before your politicians trade your dental plan for a keg of beer for their meetings.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, that's not bad. But is a derivative work a modification? If it isn't then you have no right to distribute derivative works as the BSD license does not explicitly say that you are allowed to create derivative works. Otherwise, nice spot.
Yeah no. I'm making a legal argument. You're making a nonsense argument. You are not permitted to make a derived work from a copyrighted work without permission. The BSD license doesn't give you permission. That's it. Of course, the *point* of making something BSD licensed is that you don't give a shit about what people do with the code.. you don't want to be sued.. so in 99% of cases you won't run into trouble.
hehe. Nothing permits you to add more copyright notices, conditions and disclaimers. That's the way copyright law works. Anything that is not permitted is prohibited.
Uhhh, you're on crack. "Following" is only in the BSD license in one place:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
[then the conditions]
[then the warranty disclaimer]
So suppose, Microsoft takes some BSD licensed code and incorporates it into Internet Explorer. They put in the documentation "this program contains software which is BSD licensed, here's the license", etc. Have they done all they are required to do? No. Either Internet Explorer is a modification of this BSD licensed code, in which case, it much be distributed under the BSD license.. or Internet Explorer is a derivative work of this BSD licensed code, and a derivative work is something different to a "modification" in which case it cannot be distributed *at all*.
Does mean we can legally reverse engineer that binary to see what proprietary extensions they have made to the original BSD licensed code however.. and, if we were doing decompilation, the resulting "source code" would be BSD licensed too.
So they are not relicensing the BSD licensed components. They are providing those parts of the software under the license of which they were required and they are doing all they are required to use that code by providing the license in the documentation. The power of this is that the BSD license doesn't require the source code to be released to the user (and Brendan Scott, the author of the paper, recognises this in section 7.3) so the company can keep their modifications secret.
Competition is great. I love competition. But there's this other thing, called co-operation, and us folks in the open source world, we're supposed to be better at co-operation than we are at competition. If just a few of these groups would work together (instead of just pinching stuff from qemu, as most of them do) the technology would be a whole lot better.
My God. We have: Xen, KVM, VMWare, QEMU (with and without KQEMU), User Mode Linux, Win4Lin, Bochs, and now VirtualBox. I'm sure there's others I've missed too.
They *could* debug it, if it was open. Jesus, why is that hard to understand?
Personal correspondence with the Nouveau team. That's their estimate.
So what? I runs under WINE too.
End of 2007 we'll have accelerated 3d drivers for nvidia cards that is open source.. so yeah, we'll just have to wait :( Or, ya know, contribute.
You're a user of proprietary software, live with it.
think really hard, then get back to me, ok?
Last time I checked, AOL doesn't have an OS, although it can feel that way. I know I didn't define "it" but I figured I was talking to fellow human beings that didn't need a definition of every preposition I used in my statement. Just for the robots out there: it == provide a free service for mailing operating system installation media to anyone who requests such service from a web site. Now back to cleaning the kitchen Robbie.
Canonical: Did it first.
Sun: Shouldn't need to.
Well yeah, in that case, what you ment to say, is that there isn't competing kernels. Which, of course, is totally wrong. Heard of BSD?
Huh? I am an Aussie, and I'm tell you that Fosters is the most unpopular beer in Australia, much as Bud is the most unpopular beer in the US. The marketing might say otherwise, but there's a limit to how much they can bend reality.
It's one tenth of one percent of system resources.. get some perspective. Running a KDE app on my GNOME desktop is still kind of ugly though, it would be nice if we could standardize on themes.
There *are* competing linux kernels.
Uhuh. Nextstep isn't a standard.. OpenStep is the standard, which emerged from NextStep, FootStep and the other competing APIs of Objective-C based workstation GUIs.. not to mention that these APIs were also, and continue to, compete with non-Objective-C based APIs. The fact that we are where we are on the desktop is because of all this healthy competition, not in spite of it.
Samuel Adams is a pretty good US beer.
Just because Budweiser sucks, doesn't mean you should hate on all US beer. Hell, people in the US don't even drink that stuff.
I can only imagine what Fosters is doing to Australia's reputation for beer. People in Australia don't even drink that stuff.
now is the time for Canadians to get out there and tell their elected representatives that they don't want US copyright. Do it now, before your politicians trade your dental plan for a keg of beer for their meetings.