to me, it is the GPL that ensures that the *code* remains free, while the BSD license ensures that it is the *user* that remains free.
I find it peculiar and cognitively impaired that one would think that freedom would somehow belong to an inanimate object (code) instead of a free-thinking, free-rolling human being.
And I mean no offense, it's just my opinion and I understand the whole Linux camp seems to think that way. OTOH, there are many atrange ideologies in the world today, and many people doing odd things in the names of those ideologies.
Call me naive or something. But what I really think is naive is working under a license that really only benefits large corporations (for whom software is just comoditization), dual-licensors (GPL/proprietary - and it's always with the GPL - with BSDL, you have the same leverage as, say, Apple Inc. With the GPL under a dual-license, it's asymmetric and you're on the wrong end of the deal (*)), or government projects (where, somehow, some selected few get contracts to install Linux on a huge computer base - because they have ties to the ruling party?).
I guess there are quite a few differences in the Weltanschauung of the two camps.
(*) By the way, you can always push for that asymmetry. It's Microsoft's expertise. That, somehow, so-called libre-software advocates would think they can just do that with an open source license and achieve a different outcome than the proprietary strategy just bewilders me. That there are suckers that would contribute code and give up Copyrights to such dual-licensors also bewilders me.
The legal issue is that the modified text can be under a different copyright license, and the combined work has to obey BOTH licenses.
That is deprived of any logic. If contagion holds for BOTH licenses, which one maintains the original intent and protects the right of the Copyright holder ? What you are professing here is akin to both licenses voiding each other out (because the BSDL user can't integrate the code however he wants - and the GPL user just saw his licensed be engulfed by another one, less restrictive). So, how can something both increase restriction and lessen restriction?That is an outright contradiction. Furthermore, surely, it would not be the intention of both parties.
The solution to that pertains to the rights granted by the Copyright holder. You see, centuries of legal reasoning and experiences have finally led to the conclusion that, apparently, as the Copyright has it, something emanates form an original giver. Something is granted to you. Were it not supposed to be so, there would not even be a Berne Convention, because if Copyright pertains to the receiver, I can just do away with your rights, since they don't belong legally to the same abode (legal, political and physical) under which I live. Ah, but it isn't so, is it? The spirit of the thing is to ascertain the author's rights. So it's a matter of deciding who or what has first rights.
Theo has argued along those lines. But, as the argument would have it (*), Theo is just a rabid lunatic, so the Linux camp can just go merrily about their ways.
(*) ad-hominem attacks.
PS: On a serious note, I think it's evident that the time is ripe for a GPL v. 4.
The code in that repository doesn't even follow the guidelines the SFLC lawyers suggested. It's really incredible what these linux guys are doing...Highly unethical.
I think the solution for coders who wish to release their code under both license is to provide two separate downloads - one with the BSD license, one with the GPL license - but that doesn't help here.
But, you see, the linuxers just know that, for all practical purposes, that would void the GPL license. And they can't tolerate that. Because they like to live free inside the cardboard box Stallman made for them. The problem is, the BSDL is a superset. Think outside the box.
This is what Reyk said: I used to cooperate with the people working on the madwifi port of "OpenHAL"; we exchanged ideas, bug fixes, and small code snippets. They sent me some bug reports and I also looked at their changes and reported some functional problems. This was possible because they kept the license in place.
But now the Linux code is almost ready and somebody wants to cancel any options to cooperate by locking me out with a prepended GPL and an invalid copyright on top of it.(...)
I also strongly disagree with the concept of adding a new copyright and/or a GPL license on top of it - it is still a derived work and a few stylistic changes, some code shuffling, and some bug fixes don't allow to change the copyright.
He is very explicit and all the points to which he alludes to have technical backing in Copyright law (IANAL BTW): no substantial changes; the concept of derived work; the concept that the work was publicly displayed under a Copyright modification; and the fact that the license was removed against his will.
What are the linux developers to do? Well, they could tweak the code to the point that there is substantial change (which would probably be stupid, as you are just adding bloat). Or, they could maintain the original license. Which would void the GPL for the parties that are interested in GPL software, except for those that take GPL software and close it, reselling it under a proprietary license (such as MySQL). It might be unfortunate (for the Linux camp) that Reyk released it under a dual-license. But it is so, and there's nothing the GPL camp can do about it.
The SFLC lawyers are probably silent because the just know that the Linux developers would probably get cremated in court. And Theo warned that this case may not be based in the US (ever so lax in international treaties), but in the EU. It's incredible, but it seems people are sticking their heads in the sand.
No. Stallman thought the whole thing up when he was in Massachusetts. The Boston Tea Party ("no taxation without representation"), the Puritans vs. the Berkeley (inhale)crowd(exhale). Stallman is a moralistic license puritan. BSD, well, you know, the little devil, *pr0n*...
although I imagine that the authors opinion is only partially relevant: it's written right there that it's "you can choose to be covered by either the GPL or the BSD, at you option", so the authors opinion only serves as an aditional guarantee.
No it's not irrelevant. The author grants you Copyright. You do not take it. There's a difference. Furthermore, the author was very explicit in his intention in the mailing list. It's very clear for all to see. I'll bet that this would make a reasonable case in any country signataire of the Berne convention. Of course, it will be up to a judge to decide. But if you ever used a lawyer's service, unless a judge is completely detached form reality, a party's intention is always taken into consideration and evem more so when he feels harm has been done to him or because of him.
Forthermore, you can't strip the BSD license. The license says so. The BSD license does not license the license as that would void it (and would be utterly ilogical). The license licenses the code. The license says: "do what you want to this code, but maintain the Copyright and this note." It's not so hard to understand. Yeah, I know...reality sucks. GPL zealots do not like the conundrum this situation poses to their beloved moralisitic philosophy written in stone.
In fact, this would be a very interesting case on Copyright laws and open source development, specifically as it regards the fashion in which these people work (distributed tools, mailing-lists...). I'm actually suspicious that some lawyers in the Linux camp want to take this to court...Maybe that's the root cause of all these US lawyers giving strange advice.
Yes. You are confused. Very. That's because you haven't really taken the time to read the BSD license (or the ISC license). I also suggest that you read the nice links Theo provided on Copyright laws.
Let me break it down for you: msft can take the code and use it. It cannot take the code and rip the Copyright license off.
/*
* Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
You don't get to be modded up today. Today is linux fanboy day here at/. And they didn't even take the time to read the previous/. discussion on the same topic. The same, stupid, thoughtless arguments are being repeated.
Right now, for someone who wants a desktop system, I would recomend that you look at PC-BSD (see: http://www.pcbsd.org/). It is not a fork of FreeBSD. It's FreeBSD with nice end-user add ons, such as a graphical installer and PIBs. PIBs are apps packaged and easily installed (much like on Macs or Windows). PC-BSD got a lot of positive reviews.
Also, a nice feature of BSDs is the ability to run software for Linux on them. I have Maple 8 runing on my FreeBSD and I did it after the thing just broke with the Debian upgrades.
Consider this: what would the benefits be of having a project like Samba, under a BSD license, so that the code could be easily integrated to code done by software houses that revolved around the Microsoft galaxy, to the point that this code starts showing up in more and more products? Would that help integration or hinder it?
With the GPL, code contributed by a commercial company can be taken and sold by anyone anyways. It doesn't matter whether the end result leads to contributed code being used by someone else and the source closed or left open; the code can still be used by someone else, including their competitors, reducing potential profits by the commercial company. So this argument is moot. It holds no water.
Mod this guy up! A user of Logic!
Another one of their favorite argument goes something like this: a company that, say, has patents and sells exclusive hardware will take GPL code and "contribute back to the community", because the GPL enforces that. The problem with that: patches and patches of code that turns out to be irrelevant to anyone else. How many companies, by the way, use the TiVo code?
This link was posted on Undeadly and it's germane that I quote some of what they linked to:
(...)Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.(...)
(...) Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device (...)
So, like I said: the linuxers can't remove the BSD copyright notice, because it says:
* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> * All rights reserved.
and, furthermore, if they can't remove and if it's up on some repository (like I said in another post) because it's dual-licensed, then it's visible (see above) and therefore the BSD license, for all practical purposes, takes over the GPL license.
If it were true that derivative works of dual-licensed code must be dual-licensed, what is the point in a BSD+GPL combo?
Let me put it this way: why does MySQL dual-license it as GPL and proprietary? Because they can; because they own the copyright. Furthermore, these dual-license projects are very serious, usually, about making you snail-mail forms saying you agree to give up your copyright on contributed code. This is because copyright law has serious implications that allows them do that. Theo has mentioned how copyright law protects his BSD project in his post.
Now another question: why does Apple (let's take Apple as an example of an evil company, according to FSF standards) even mention that they have BSD code (the "Regents of California" string?) Because they are legally required to do it. These companies do not simply strip the BSD license. They are legally bound to display it.
Now to your question: the point of the combo BSD+GPL would be that the contributed code can be merged back to the BSD codebase. Since the copyright belongs to the BSD developer, he is under legal rights to disregard the GPL part. The linuxers, OTOH, cannot make the BSD code just "go away" by stripping the license. So, to answer your question directly: from the linuxers' standpoint, there's is no point in the BSD license. It even renders the GPL license useless because, once your code is up on some Linux repository, it is dual-licensed by force of copyright law and this means that anyone can just copy that chunk and treat it as BSD-licensed (there's a third-party benefitting here with this situation - the ones who can then take the BSD code and merge it into proprietary products.) From the BSD developers' standpoint, the dual-license is advantageous because the code modifications can then be merged back into the BSD codebase.
So, yes, it's confusing, it's bewildering. The GPL has been pwned.
"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL. Now "conform" takes the meaning of "taking the shape of" the GPL.
However, because the code is licensed to you by the author, who retains the copyright, you don't get to strip the BSD license. Theo was very explicit about this, citing copyright law. I'll even bet that his argument, made in a public mailing list, can be used in court.
Now, what would be the purpose of having a BSD+GPL license? Here's one possibility: because the author hopes that you contribute code back and that contribution can be merged back to his BSD codebase. Again, Theo has been explicit about this (and this would mean, I guess, that on moral grounds *only* the linuxers would comply - guess we were wrong about their purported high moral standards). Now, my understanding is that linuxers cannot make the code GPL-only, while the BSD author can make it BSD-only when the code comes back, because he is the author and owns copyright (so he can do whatever he wants with it). Second: to respect the wishes of those that would want GPL code. And, in this case, it would be for only purely aesthetic reasons or any other self-righteous high-falutin' one they can come up with , because, for all practical reasons, it voids the GPL license.
The Linux people can't strip the license. If that were true, Apple, Joost, Microsoft, Juniper Networks, etc. would just rip off the BSD license and never mention it.
Stripping the license is not the same thing as "do what you want with the code." You can't legally strip the license. What is the point of the license, then? A lot of people are making this mistake on this Slashdot thread. You all got to ask yourselves why is it, then, that proprietary code that has incorporated BSD code mentions "Copyright The Regents of the University of California, etc." if you can just rip the license and claim it's all yours?
You kinda make me want to pick up a few books on logic and model theory. That way I could possibly begin to explain why it is that you start with a series of assumptions that I'm not sure you even see.
I don't see how source code once licensed under BSD can somehow be made "unfree".
On the other hand, we know very well how GPL code can be made "unfree": by dual-licensing it with a proprietary license and asking you to give up your copyright by signing forms when you submit code, so they can take your code and make a buck saying "so long, sucker, and watch me make my million."
Slashdot Mirror
to me, it is the GPL that ensures that the *code* remains free, while the BSD license ensures that it is the *user* that remains free.
I find it peculiar and cognitively impaired that one would think that freedom would somehow belong to an inanimate object (code) instead of a free-thinking, free-rolling human being.
And I mean no offense, it's just my opinion and I understand the whole Linux camp seems to think that way. OTOH, there are many atrange ideologies in the world today, and many people doing odd things in the names of those ideologies.
Call me naive or something. But what I really think is naive is working under a license that really only benefits large corporations (for whom software is just comoditization), dual-licensors (GPL/proprietary - and it's always with the GPL - with BSDL, you have the same leverage as, say, Apple Inc. With the GPL under a dual-license, it's asymmetric and you're on the wrong end of the deal (*)), or government projects (where, somehow, some selected few get contracts to install Linux on a huge computer base - because they have ties to the ruling party?).
I guess there are quite a few differences in the Weltanschauung of the two camps.
(*) By the way, you can always push for that asymmetry. It's Microsoft's expertise. That, somehow, so-called libre-software advocates would think they can just do that with an open source license and achieve a different outcome than the proprietary strategy just bewilders me. That there are suckers that would contribute code and give up Copyrights to such dual-licensors also bewilders me.
The page you linked to says a Linux and a FreeBSD port are undergoing.
The legal issue is that the modified text can be under a different copyright license, and the combined work has to obey BOTH licenses.
That is deprived of any logic. If contagion holds for BOTH licenses, which one maintains the original intent and protects the right of the Copyright holder ? What you are professing here is akin to both licenses voiding each other out (because the BSDL user can't integrate the code however he wants - and the GPL user just saw his licensed be engulfed by another one, less restrictive). So, how can something both increase restriction and lessen restriction? That is an outright contradiction. Furthermore, surely, it would not be the intention of both parties.
The solution to that pertains to the rights granted by the Copyright holder. You see, centuries of legal reasoning and experiences have finally led to the conclusion that, apparently, as the Copyright has it, something emanates form an original giver. Something is granted to you. Were it not supposed to be so, there would not even be a Berne Convention, because if Copyright pertains to the receiver, I can just do away with your rights, since they don't belong legally to the same abode (legal, political and physical) under which I live. Ah, but it isn't so, is it? The spirit of the thing is to ascertain the author's rights. So it's a matter of deciding who or what has first rights.
Theo has argued along those lines. But, as the argument would have it (*), Theo is just a rabid lunatic, so the Linux camp can just go merrily about their ways.
(*) ad-hominem attacks.
PS: On a serious note, I think it's evident that the time is ripe for a GPL v. 4.
The code in that repository doesn't even follow the guidelines the SFLC lawyers suggested.
It's really incredible what these linux guys are doing...Highly unethical.
I think the solution for coders who wish to release their code under both license is to provide two separate downloads - one with the BSD license, one with the GPL license - but that doesn't help here.
But, you see, the linuxers just know that, for all practical purposes, that would void the GPL license. And they can't tolerate that. Because they like to live free inside the cardboard box Stallman made for them. The problem is, the BSDL is a superset. Think outside the box.
This is what Reyk said:
I used to cooperate with the people working on the
madwifi port of "OpenHAL"; we exchanged ideas, bug fixes, and small
code snippets. They sent me some bug reports and I also looked at
their changes and reported some functional problems. This was possible
because they kept the license in place.
But now the Linux code is almost ready and somebody wants to cancel
any options to cooperate by locking me out with a prepended GPL and an
invalid copyright on top of it.(...)
I also strongly disagree with the
concept of adding a new copyright and/or a GPL license on top of it -
it is still a derived work and a few stylistic changes, some code
shuffling, and some bug fixes don't allow to change the copyright.
He is very explicit and all the points to which he alludes to have technical backing in Copyright law (IANAL BTW): no substantial changes; the concept of derived work; the concept that the work was publicly displayed under a Copyright modification; and the fact that the license was removed against his will.
What are the linux developers to do? Well, they could tweak the code to the point that there is substantial change (which would probably be stupid, as you are just adding bloat). Or, they could maintain the original license. Which would void the GPL for the parties that are interested in GPL software, except for those that take GPL software and close it, reselling it under a proprietary license (such as MySQL). It might be unfortunate (for the Linux camp) that Reyk released it under a dual-license. But it is so, and there's nothing the GPL camp can do about it.
The SFLC lawyers are probably silent because the just know that the Linux developers would probably get cremated in court. And Theo warned that this case may not be based in the US (ever so lax in international treaties), but in the EU. It's incredible, but it seems people are sticking their heads in the sand.
Oh, right...right! OH!, it's so simple!
You got it! There's is no ethical dimension to this problem! There is no issue with Copyright laws! There is no conundrum here for the GPL advocates!
Why don't you write to Theo and Reyk and explain that?
PS: Ever been to court? A license doesn't say that. The Coyright holder (you, know, the dude that just put © on his stuff) says that. It's kinda hard to argue that you meant no wrongdoing when you repeatedly were warned of the consequences and still persisted on a certain path. In particular, it's kinda hard to argue that when you've been made to sit in a court room in front of the judge to explain that, really, you meant no harm by trying to screw people over repeatedly. Any judge in the Western world, that is.
Look up Microsoft and OpenBSD. Ever heard of strings?
No. Stallman thought the whole thing up when he was in Massachusetts. The Boston Tea Party ("no taxation without representation"), the Puritans vs. the Berkeley (inhale)crowd(exhale). Stallman is a moralistic license puritan. BSD, well, you know, the little devil, *pr0n*...
although I imagine that the authors opinion is only partially relevant: it's written right there that it's "you can choose to be covered by either the GPL or the BSD, at you option", so the authors opinion only serves as an aditional guarantee.
No it's not irrelevant. The author grants you Copyright. You do not take it. There's a difference. Furthermore, the author was very explicit in his intention in the mailing list. It's very clear for all to see. I'll bet that this would make a reasonable case in any country signataire of the Berne convention. Of course, it will be up to a judge to decide. But if you ever used a lawyer's service, unless a judge is completely detached form reality, a party's intention is always taken into consideration and evem more so when he feels harm has been done to him or because of him.
Forthermore, you can't strip the BSD license. The license says so. The BSD license does not license the license as that would void it (and would be utterly ilogical). The license licenses the code. The license says: "do what you want to this code, but maintain the Copyright and this note." It's not so hard to understand. Yeah, I know...reality sucks. GPL zealots do not like the conundrum this situation poses to their beloved moralisitic philosophy written in stone.
In fact, this would be a very interesting case on Copyright laws and open source development, specifically as it regards the fashion in which these people work (distributed tools, mailing-lists...). I'm actually suspicious that some lawyers in the Linux camp want to take this to court...Maybe that's the root cause of all these US lawyers giving strange advice.
I am also confused about the BSD bitching.
/*
Yes. You are confused. Very. That's because you haven't really taken the time to read the BSD license (or the ISC license). I also suggest that you read the nice links Theo provided on Copyright laws.
Let me break it down for you: msft can take the code and use it. It cannot take the code and rip the Copyright license off.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/share/misc/license.template
* Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
You don't get to be modded up today. Today is linux fanboy day here at /. And they didn't even take the time to read the previous /. discussion on the same topic. The same, stupid, thoughtless arguments are being repeated.
Oh, nice rhetorical technique...Next you'll say there isn't a problem at all.
I think Theo has been very clear. In particular, when he points to Copyright law and to the fact that, in the EU, Eben Moglen needs a tourist guide.
The linuxers just can't take it that they have to respect a different license. And one very different than their moralisitic, religious choice.
Right now, for someone who wants a desktop system, I would recomend that you look at PC-BSD (see: http://www.pcbsd.org/). It is not a fork of FreeBSD. It's FreeBSD with nice end-user add ons, such as a graphical installer and PIBs. PIBs are apps packaged and easily installed (much like on Macs or Windows). PC-BSD got a lot of positive reviews.
FreeBSD has more software than the other BSDs and has more commercial products being developed for it, such as some IDEs, back-up products, VMs (see: http://www.win4bsd.com/, http://serenityvirtual.com/), anti-virus (although geared toward corporate users, but see: http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_security_mail_server?chapter=207716294) even an excelent Microsoft-Word commpatible Word Processor (see: http://www.softmaker.com/english/). Plus, Java certified by Sun.
Also, a nice feature of BSDs is the ability to run software for Linux on them. I have Maple 8 runing on my FreeBSD and I did it after the thing just broke with the Debian upgrades.
What are these "Linux forums" (Ok, pedandicts, it's "fora"). The Ubuntu PHP "forums?"
Consider this: what would the benefits be of having a project like Samba, under a BSD license, so that the code could be easily integrated to code done by software houses that revolved around the Microsoft galaxy, to the point that this code starts showing up in more and more products? Would that help integration or hinder it?
With the GPL, code contributed by a commercial company can be taken and sold by anyone anyways. It doesn't matter whether the end result leads to contributed code being used by someone else and the source closed or left open; the code can still be used by someone else, including their competitors, reducing potential profits by the commercial company. So this argument is moot. It holds no water.
Mod this guy up! A user of Logic!
Another one of their favorite argument goes something like this: a company that, say, has patents and sells exclusive hardware will take GPL code and "contribute back to the community", because the GPL enforces that. The problem with that: patches and patches of code that turns out to be irrelevant to anyone else. How many companies, by the way, use the TiVo code?
ow much has Apple contributed back to BSD after taking the kernel and making money off it?
Stop trolling. It's clear you know nothing about Apple's contributions. Go read.
Oh, boo hoo...
Look...The source code for TiVo is there. See: http://dynamic.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp
You wanna legislate on how someone builds their product? If you don't like, don't buy a TiVo. Flex that consumer muscle.
This really is a childish world view. Yadda yadda yadda as rhetoric.
(...)Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.(...)
(...) Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device (...)
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
So, like I said: the linuxers can't remove the BSD copyright notice, because it says: and, furthermore, if they can't remove and if it's up on some repository (like I said in another post) because it's dual-licensed, then it's visible (see above) and therefore the BSD license, for all practical purposes, takes over the GPL license.
Game over.
If it were true that derivative works of dual-licensed code must be dual-licensed, what is the point in a BSD+GPL combo?
Let me put it this way: why does MySQL dual-license it as GPL and proprietary? Because they can; because they own the copyright. Furthermore, these dual-license projects are very serious, usually, about making you snail-mail forms saying you agree to give up your copyright on contributed code. This is because copyright law has serious implications that allows them do that. Theo has mentioned how copyright law protects his BSD project in his post.
Now another question: why does Apple (let's take Apple as an example of an evil company, according to FSF standards) even mention that they have BSD code (the "Regents of California" string?) Because they are legally required to do it. These companies do not simply strip the BSD license. They are legally bound to display it.
Now to your question: the point of the combo BSD+GPL would be that the contributed code can be merged back to the BSD codebase. Since the copyright belongs to the BSD developer, he is under legal rights to disregard the GPL part. The linuxers, OTOH, cannot make the BSD code just "go away" by stripping the license. So, to answer your question directly: from the linuxers' standpoint, there's is no point in the BSD license. It even renders the GPL license useless because, once your code is up on some Linux repository, it is dual-licensed by force of copyright law and this means that anyone can just copy that chunk and treat it as BSD-licensed (there's a third-party benefitting here with this situation - the ones who can then take the BSD code and merge it into proprietary products.) From the BSD developers' standpoint, the dual-license is advantageous because the code modifications can then be merged back into the BSD codebase.
So, yes, it's confusing, it's bewildering. The GPL has been pwned.
"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL. Now "conform" takes the meaning of "taking the shape of" the GPL.
However, because the code is licensed to you by the author, who retains the copyright, you don't get to strip the BSD license. Theo was very explicit about this, citing copyright law. I'll even bet that his argument, made in a public mailing list, can be used in court.
Now, what would be the purpose of having a BSD+GPL license? Here's one possibility: because the author hopes that you contribute code back and that contribution can be merged back to his BSD codebase. Again, Theo has been explicit about this (and this would mean, I guess, that on moral grounds *only* the linuxers would comply - guess we were wrong about their purported high moral standards). Now, my understanding is that linuxers cannot make the code GPL-only, while the BSD author can make it BSD-only when the code comes back, because he is the author and owns copyright (so he can do whatever he wants with it). Second: to respect the wishes of those that would want GPL code. And, in this case, it would be for only purely aesthetic reasons or any other self-righteous high-falutin' one they can come up with , because, for all practical reasons, it voids the GPL license.
The Linux people can't strip the license. If that were true, Apple, Joost, Microsoft, Juniper Networks, etc. would just rip off the BSD license and never mention it.
Stripping the license is not the same thing as "do what you want with the code."
You can't legally strip the license. What is the point of the license, then?
A lot of people are making this mistake on this Slashdot thread. You all got to ask yourselves why is it, then, that proprietary code that has incorporated BSD code mentions "Copyright The Regents of the University of California, etc." if you can just rip the license and claim it's all yours?
You kinda make me want to pick up a few books on logic and model theory. That way I could possibly begin to explain why it is that you start with a series of assumptions that I'm not sure you even see.
You totally misunderstand what this whole Slashdot story and thread is about.
I don't see how source code once licensed under BSD can somehow be made "unfree".
On the other hand, we know very well how GPL code can be made "unfree": by dual-licensing it with a proprietary license and asking you to give up your copyright by signing forms when you submit code, so they can take your code and make a buck saying "so long, sucker, and watch me make my million."