I was under the impression that there are different BSDs because of competing ideologies. That and NetBSD kicked out Theo because he didn't work well with others.
As I recall, that was version 2.96, which was actually the development branch for 3.0. Not surprisingly, development versions have bugs, which is why they shouldn't be used by mainstream users.
If you are using a piece of BSD-licensed code, you must forever obey those three terms. They allow you to LINK code against any code - GPL, proprietary, whatever. BUT, you must always reproduce the copyright notice and the list of conditions. Nothing gives you the right to remove them.
Slightly off-topic, but the GPL forbids you from linking BSD-licensed code to GPL-licensed code. Linking BSD-licensed code to LGPL-licensed code is OK, though.
I don't know about everyone else, but the primary reason I don't use the GIMP is because, as a person who is doing simple image stuff, I tend to use a graphics program's shape tools a lot. Which the GIMP didn't have the last version I tested.
A program that makes me jump through hoops to draw circles and such isn't going to stay on my computer when my primary usage involves drawing circles and such.
I read the BSD license. Apparently you haven't, since you don't seem to realize that "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted..." means any types of modifications, so long as the rest of the license is followed.
(Note: This is a rhetorical argument as I haven't actually checked how the work in question is licensed, but I'm building on what the grandparent has said about dual licenses)
If the licenses in question are the BSD license and GPL, and I choose to license it under the BSD license, I am free to remove any and all mention of the GPL from the work in question. The opposite is also true.
Chances are a court would rule in my favor, because I am doing exactly what the author says I can.
Obviously not, because you cannot just take something and slap a lable that says, "I made this, it's mine," on any random thing you see. You really need to read up on how copyright works, you must have made what a judge declares a significant addition before you have the right to claim ownership over an item, and even then, it doesn't remove the other person's ownership of the original work.
Sure I can, because the BSD license tells me I can modify and distribute it as long as I don't remove the copyright lines.
You have read the license, haven't you? It doesn't say "5. You can only distribute a new version if you don't change the license." or "6. You can only distribute a new version if it's significantly different from the existing version."
No, Theo is arguing that there is no derived work at all in this case. Copyright law in the US (which Theo cites) and abroad requires that changes to the original be substantial for the result to qualify as a derived work.
Here is the license OpenBSD uses in its entirety, with the exception that point 3 is omitted as it was struck out by the University of California, Berkeley in 1999.
* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. 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.
* 4. Neither the name of the University 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 REGENTS 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 REGENTS 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.
*
In other words, it doesn't matter if it's a derived work or not because you've already given me permission to modify and redistribute it. That includes adding a new license to it, as long as I keep the original copyright text.
As Constantine pointed out, the GPL is not a EULA.
If anything, EULAs are illegal because, despite being End User License Agreements, they do not meet the legal definition of a license: "4) n. a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition." according to law.com. (There are four other definitions; Three of them involve government, the last is for the verb license)
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: By Title 17 (US Copyright Law), section 117 in particular, I have all the rights I need to install and run a computer program that I have legally obtained. I don't need a license for it and telling me that I do is fraud.
Fair use doesn't just mean you don't pay for content.
For instance, parody is considered fair use. By that logic, about half of every CD Weird Al sells is dependent on fair use.
As someone else pointed out, newspapers use fair use for everything from photographs to quotes.
Schools use fair use to educate using copyrighted materials. Who here was brought up in the US education system and hasn't seen the movie Roots, for instance? It was presented as part of U.S. History where I went to high school.
And do you want to [Alt]-f-x exit or [Alt]-f-c close or ctrl-q quit?
Exiting a program is almost universal in Windows: [Alt]-F4, [Alt]-[space]-c, or [Alt]-f-x. The first two work in 99.999% of programs. The third works in most programs that have a File menu.
There are a number of "standard" shortcuts in Windows. Enough so that, if you use Visual Studio's form editor, the "Insert Standard Items" option fills in a bunch for you: [Ctrl]-N = File, New [Ctrl]-O = File, Open [Ctrl]-S = File, Save [Ctrl]-P = File, Print [Ctrl]-Z = Edit, Undo [Ctrl]-Y = Edit, Redo [Ctrl]-X = Edit, Cut [Ctrl]-C = Edit, Copy [Ctrl]-V = Edit, Paste
However, these are not universal, because Application developers can use whichever keys they want.
That only works if your website is large enough to actually attract advertisers.
Google Adsense, on the other hand, while not paying a lot, pays you per thousand views for displaying text ads that are determined by your site's keywords (as determined by Google... go figure).
For instance, it's not a secret that I'm a volunteer on a game music site which uses Google Adsense. The ads showing for me right now are text ads for Nintendo Ringtones and a PC game.
As a side note, I've noticed that Adblock subscriptions tend to block Google Adsense, despite their ads not being popups, animations, or flash. This isn't relevant here, but it is to comments further up that I don't have time to reply to before I leave, thanks to/.'s enforced 1 minute wait between comments.
And why do you care if they are there? Do you figure the evil Microsoft will have some tricksies up their sleeves because of these tags? What part of the phrase "ignore them if you don't care about backwards compatibility" do you fail to grok?
If a major Office competitor implemented OOXML but ignored the backwards compatibility parts, Microsoft would be sure to use those when saving OOXML files in MSOffice just to make sure they don't look right in the competitor's office suite. Which part of that did you fail to grok?
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that there are different BSDs because of competing ideologies. That and NetBSD kicked out Theo because he didn't work well with others.
As I recall, that was version 2.96, which was actually the development branch for 3.0. Not surprisingly, development versions have bugs, which is why they shouldn't be used by mainstream users.
That's not a very "standard" standard. I've seen quite a few programming style guides that recommend 4 spaces. Or tabs.
Believe it or not, yes. That's how it works in languages like C, C++, and Java.
This actually causes people to complain about the size of Java's standard library because deprecated features are never removed.
You know, I said something similar to this about Larry Wall, Perl, and Perl 6.
Slightly off-topic, but the GPL forbids you from linking BSD-licensed code to GPL-licensed code. Linking BSD-licensed code to LGPL-licensed code is OK, though.
I don't know about everyone else, but the primary reason I don't use the GIMP is because, as a person who is doing simple image stuff, I tend to use a graphics program's shape tools a lot. Which the GIMP didn't have the last version I tested.
A program that makes me jump through hoops to draw circles and such isn't going to stay on my computer when my primary usage involves drawing circles and such.
The BSD license implicitly gives me that right. Here, I'll even show you where.
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:"
I bolded the appropriate section for you.
I'm given permission to distribute modified versions. I'm prohibited from removing restrictions placed on me, but I'm free to add new ones.
I read the BSD license. Apparently you haven't, since you don't seem to realize that "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted..." means any types of modifications, so long as the rest of the license is followed.
(Note: This is a rhetorical argument as I haven't actually checked how the work in question is licensed, but I'm building on what the grandparent has said about dual licenses)
In the case of a dual-licensed work, like the grandparent was talking about, the Copyright holder (you, know, the dude that just put © on his stuff) has said "obey the terms of this license or this other license."
If the licenses in question are the BSD license and GPL, and I choose to license it under the BSD license, I am free to remove any and all mention of the GPL from the work in question. The opposite is also true.
Chances are a court would rule in my favor, because I am doing exactly what the author says I can.
If I had any mod points and hadn't already posted in this topic, I'd mod this up.
Sure I can, because the BSD license tells me I can modify and distribute it as long as I don't remove the copyright lines.
You have read the license, haven't you? It doesn't say "5. You can only distribute a new version if you don't change the license." or "6. You can only distribute a new version if it's significantly different from the existing version."
I suggest you re-read OpenBSD's Copyright policy.
Here is the license OpenBSD uses in its entirety, with the exception that point 3 is omitted as it was struck out by the University of California, Berkeley in 1999. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's a derived work or not because you've already given me permission to modify and redistribute it. That includes adding a new license to it, as long as I keep the original copyright text.
(I am not a lawyer).
As Constantine pointed out, the GPL is not a EULA.
If anything, EULAs are illegal because, despite being End User License Agreements, they do not meet the legal definition of a license: "4) n. a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition." according to law.com. (There are four other definitions; Three of them involve government, the last is for the verb license)
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: By Title 17 (US Copyright Law), section 117 in particular, I have all the rights I need to install and run a computer program that I have legally obtained. I don't need a license for it and telling me that I do is fraud.
Fair use doesn't just mean you don't pay for content.
For instance, parody is considered fair use. By that logic, about half of every CD Weird Al sells is dependent on fair use.
As someone else pointed out, newspapers use fair use for everything from photographs to quotes.
Schools use fair use to educate using copyrighted materials. Who here was brought up in the US education system and hasn't seen the movie Roots, for instance? It was presented as part of U.S. History where I went to high school.
Funny, I don't recall Norse by Norsewest (AKA Lost Vikings 2) being that big of a hit.
US Patents last for 20 years from the date they are filed, not 17 years. (Source: USPTO General Information Concerning Patents)
Since people started defining things as good vs. evil.
No, but Microsoft like to pretend "Microsoft Office Visio 2007" is part of Microsoft Office.
Exiting a program is almost universal in Windows: [Alt]-F4, [Alt]-[space]-c, or [Alt]-f-x. The first two work in 99.999% of programs. The third works in most programs that have a File menu.
There are a number of "standard" shortcuts in Windows. Enough so that, if you use Visual Studio's form editor, the "Insert Standard Items" option fills in a bunch for you:
[Ctrl]-N = File, New
[Ctrl]-O = File, Open
[Ctrl]-S = File, Save
[Ctrl]-P = File, Print
[Ctrl]-Z = Edit, Undo
[Ctrl]-Y = Edit, Redo
[Ctrl]-X = Edit, Cut
[Ctrl]-C = Edit, Copy
[Ctrl]-V = Edit, Paste
However, these are not universal, because Application developers can use whichever keys they want.
That only works if your website is large enough to actually attract advertisers.
/.'s enforced 1 minute wait between comments.
Google Adsense, on the other hand, while not paying a lot, pays you per thousand views for displaying text ads that are determined by your site's keywords (as determined by Google... go figure).
For instance, it's not a secret that I'm a volunteer on a game music site which uses Google Adsense. The ads showing for me right now are text ads for Nintendo Ringtones and a PC game.
As a side note, I've noticed that Adblock subscriptions tend to block Google Adsense, despite their ads not being popups, animations, or flash. This isn't relevant here, but it is to comments further up that I don't have time to reply to before I leave, thanks to
We'll see if you still say that when a site you likes goes out of business because it wasn't making enough money to cover its expenses.
If a major Office competitor implemented OOXML but ignored the backwards compatibility parts, Microsoft would be sure to use those when saving OOXML files in MSOffice just to make sure they don't look right in the competitor's office suite. Which part of that did you fail to grok?
True, but chances are you've heard of Opera. Besides, nothing's stopping you from googling Opera.