"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-20
They are stealing GPL code too and you will not know most of them
Wow. So the GPL doesn't really work properly, and people just steal the code anyway? Do you have any evidence for that?
Haha, sorry folks, I know it's probably still a touchy subject, but some folks seem to have the memories of goldfish.
Segedunum, if you want evidence that people just steal GPL software for the hell of it expecting not to get caught... do a google search for a little thing called "CherryOS"
Here, I'll save you the trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CherryOS
You see, software licenses are like the lock on your door. If someone gets a sudden urge, they'll jiggle the knob and the walk away after finding it locked... but that doesn't mean door locks work, it means most people will give up and leave... but a locksmith can still get you into your house... so, it stands to reason that someone else could just as easily.
As with anything else, it's just there to keep "honest" people "honest".
The cherry OS people just happened to be the stupid punk teenager who breaks a window with a rock rather than learning how to pick the deadbolt, but you can bet there are a crap-load of people who spend the time to learn how the lock works before trying to rob you... and those are the ones nobody catches.
Member since:2005-07-06
Segedunum, if you want evidence that people just steal GPL software for the hell of it expecting not to get caught... do a google search for a little thing called "CherryOS"
Here, I'll save you the trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CherryOS
Is that all you can come up with? Really? From your opening sentence I thought you might actually have something to say, and then you pull that out.
The fact that that is about the only thing you can come up with just proves me right - the GPL simply works - and violations are dealt with as they should be.
Member since:
2005-07-06
An example among others -> Apple. They give something back in terms of code, money, build/mirror servers and so on.
Which is why something like Darwin is practically dead, and no one will be able to do anything truly useful with it. The only thing that truly matters to an open source project is code.
They are stealing GPL code too and you will not know most of them
Wow. So the GPL doesn't really work properly, and people just steal the code anyway? Do you have any evidence for that?
So in the end you have GPL, which makes the life of developers very difficult if you mix up with other licenses.
The benefits quite clearly outweigh any disadvantages on that score. As explained though, everyone knows exactly what the GPL entails, but some just want to pretend that it's difficult for their own ends ;-).