Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:08 UTC, submitted by RJ
"We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."
Thread beginning with comment 202257
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-09-21
Nope. It does point out a very valid legal opinion by a lawyer that you cant simply relicense any code licensed under BSD as many people do assume.
I disagree about the weight you give to the article. They are merely educated opinions based off of Australian law , and neither US nor Australia have had any hard rulings on such matters.
But again, for all practical purposes, how does it change anything? The ONLY difference it makes to maintain the BSD license required for distribution, are that you maintain the copyright notice and that the owners and contributors of that BSDL code cannot be named for endorsement without their consent. Yet these are inconsequential for those who are already using BSD code today because they are not violating any of those terms. MS still maintains copyright notices (ok, so you'll have to look hard) and they aren't using the authors of the BSDL works in promoting their products either.