Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Apr 2007 13:14 UTC, submitted by detonator
Permalink for comment 228160
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-16
I'm with Theo on this one. The best way to get licence compliance is to talk to someone privately first. Telling the world is the last step.
While I do agree that this could have (should have) been handled much more maturely, it did need to be publicized that the re-licensed code was taken from a GPL'd project and re-licensed illegally. People freely "borrow" BSD-licensed code whenever they see it; the Linux bcm authors didn't want that happening to their code, since that's not the license they chose to use. It would have been nice if they had given the BSD contributor a chance to correct and publicize his own action though...