Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:01 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 386583
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.
RE[3]: Innacurate and flamebait
by google_ninja on Mon 28th Sep 2009 14:04
in reply to "RE[2]: Innacurate and flamebait"
RE[4]: Innacurate and flamebait
by spiderman on Mon 28th Sep 2009 14:20
in reply to "RE[3]: Innacurate and flamebait"
Lack of protection can also be seen as restriction. It's all relative to one's point of view.
Anyway, the BSD license DOES have restrictions/protections. It is mandatory to distribute BSD licenced software with the code and you can not change the license unless the modifications are 'substantial'.
Trying to represent rights in bar charts is usually a bad idea. Putting in text that this is the only possible point of view is also a bad idea. And comparing the BSD and the GPL on some computed "sum of rights" is a very bad idea. It's a lot more complex than that actually. It's better to avoid the subject all together.
Edited 2009-09-28 14:24 UTC
RE[3]: Innacurate and flamebait
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 28th Sep 2009 15:34
in reply to "RE[2]: Innacurate and flamebait"
RE[4]: Innacurate and flamebait
by spiderman on Tue 29th Sep 2009 05:32
in reply to "RE[3]: Innacurate and flamebait"





Member since:
2008-10-23
If so, then it is not only a restriction, as it would be also a protection. Your sentence in the article is therefore inaccurate.
By that logic, the requirement to distribute the code with BSD licensed software can only be seen as a restriction when looked upon from the perspective of more permissive proprietary licensed that don't require you to distribute the code.
That would ignore completely the point of the requirement and exposes your uninformed opinion that there is no point in distributing source code (as it was ONLY a restriction). No, it is not ONLY a restriction and can not be seen ONLY as a restriction, OBVIOUSLY. Most people would think that not having the source code is quite a bigger restriction than not having to distribute it.
And, as I said, it is flame bait, too.
It was totally unnecessary. You article should stick to differences between EULA and OSS licences. Or if you have to talk the differences between the GPL and the BSD, do it factually.