OSNews

"Excuse moa, who said re-license? Heck, even Microsoft got BSDL code under BSDL and nobody is going to re-license it under other so called "commercial" license. And who said that companies does not contribute code back?

GPL is much more open way? YOU LOCKED MY CODE IN YOUR GPL LICENSE DAMMIT... hypocrite..."

YOUR EXCUSED ,I THOUGHT A HYPOCRITE, WAS SAY SOMEONE WHO SAY...ADVOCATES THE FREEDOM OF A LICENSE AND THEN WHEN THAT VERY FREEDOM IS UTILIZED, SUDDENLY THIS FREEDOM IS ATTACKED ON MORAL(SIC) GROUNDS. I FEAR AFTER THE ATTACKS ON OTHERS USING OPEN SOURCE LICENSES. ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE COMPANIES WHO LOCK BSD CODE IN "PROPRIETARY" CLOSED SOURCE ARE ATTACKED. AT LEAST GPL ACTUALLY STATES WHAT GPL AUTHORS WANT IN THE LICENSE. COMPANIES WHO USE BSD CODE HAVE THE CHOICE TO *CONTRIBUTE CODE BACK* THAT SAME CHOICE IS GRANTED TO COMPANIES WHO CHOSE TO OPEN SOURCE THEIR CODE UNDER GPL IF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THEN THE LICENSE NEEDS TO SPECIFICALLY STATE SUCH. BTW I SUSPECT THAT ALL THIS IS JUST ANNOYING AUTHORS OF GPL CODE THAT CONTRIBUTE BACK TO BSD CODE, WHEN YOU LABEL THEM HYPOCRITES ETC, OF COURSE YOU ARE ADVOCATING LOCKING THEIR CODE TO YOUR BSD LICENSE DAMMIT...HYPOCITE. AS A SIDE NOTE MOST PEOPLE ARE AMENABLE TO BOTH LICENSES, AND SEE ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF BOTH

can I stop all this shouting now.

Edited 2007-09-30 18:23