To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Linux kiddies, they don't know anything about pro development. Real developers are using cvs and you do need a base for development - this is the usual way in opensource. This so-called violation is a flamewar toward OpenBSD, it was no release stuff, it was a working base only.
BSD should be using the original BSD license, because it's incompatible with this "closed-source"-GPL-nonsense. The opensource-community would be better without the GPL-zealots! Fanatics!
First off, when you distribute code it doesn't matter to who, you are still publicly posting code you have no right to. It doesn't matter if it was working or not, the fact is the code was taken copied and redistributed under another license, regardless of who it was intended for or if the code was just a placeholder. The PL is pretty explicit about these things. Like you said it was put on cvs. What is cvs? Hmmm, I don't know a way for others to gt access to your code. What does that mean? It means that the code was distributed. The issue is not that it was distributed but that the code was redistributed under another license that the original author didn't use for specific reasons. I really don't see you argument here. The code was distributed and neither Marcus, Theo, or any of the OpenBSD team have denied this. Was it a mistake, I happen to think it wasn't but who knows.






Member since:
2005-08-28
Lol, this is classic 'look what you made me do'-behaviour. As I child, on a few occasions I would destroy a toy or rip apart a comic book of mine to 'punish' my mom. Of course, my mom didn't care, and I soon realized I was only punishing myself.