Microsoft has a hidden agenda behind this donation?
Microsoft wants to see BSD succeed, that is hardly a hidden agenda. They have leveraged BSD assets greatly over the years (as well as contributed back to them).
Indeed, Microsoft wants BSD to succeed over Linux. BSD can be controlled, Linux can't due to the licenses used.
I'll probably be modded down to troll for this but: Microsoft indirectly sounded the death knell for a product today that was killed by Linux -- Windows Phone.
BSD software can be forked to GPL anytime, and then that fork is closed to commercial use. If MS makes OpenBSD great and then becomes a shit, OpenBSD can be forked to a GPL state and MS gets to keep the pieces it paid for.
It probably comes from reading the licenses, which you should try sometime. Note also the word forked.
You take some BSD-licensed code, make changes to it (creating a derivative version), then GPL-license the derivative. Anyone is still free to find the original BSD sources and make their own derivative, but they can't do anything with the GPL-licensed fork without following the GPL -- which includes GPL'ing any work derived from that.
Of course unless the changes introduced by the fork are particularly
You take some BSD-licensed code, make changes to it (creating a derivative version), then GPL-license the derivative.
You can GPL your code, not the whole thing. You cannot add a few lines to OpenSSH and make this derivative solely under the GPL. You could add new code to it and have that covered under the GPL, but the whole would have to be distributed with multiple licenses. Additionally, because you are still distributing BSD licensed code, the original (4, 3, or 2 clause) license must be attached.
Why do I get the funny feeling that (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has a hidden agenda behind this donation?
Microsoft wants to see BSD succeed, that is hardly a hidden agenda. They have leveraged BSD assets greatly over the years (as well as contributed back to them).
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed, Microsoft wants BSD to succeed over Linux. BSD can be controlled, Linux can't due to the licenses used.
I'll probably be modded down to troll for this but: Microsoft indirectly sounded the death knell for a product today that was killed by Linux -- Windows Phone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
BSD software can be forked to GPL anytime, and then that fork is closed to commercial use. If MS makes OpenBSD great and then becomes a shit, OpenBSD can be forked to a GPL state and MS gets to keep the pieces it paid for.
Seems like a great relationship to me.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
BSD software can be forked to GPL anytime
your comment is all bullshit but this is the most entertaining part, what orifice did it come from?
Re: (Score:3)
It probably comes from reading the licenses, which you should try sometime. Note also the word forked.
You take some BSD-licensed code, make changes to it (creating a derivative version), then GPL-license the derivative. Anyone is still free to find the original BSD sources and make their own derivative, but they can't do anything with the GPL-licensed fork without following the GPL -- which includes GPL'ing any work derived from that.
Of course unless the changes introduced by the fork are particularly
Re: (Score:0)
You can GPL your code, not the whole thing. You cannot add a few lines to OpenSSH and make this derivative solely under the GPL. You could add new code to it and have that covered under the GPL, but the whole would have to be distributed with multiple licenses. Additionally, because you are still distributing BSD licensed code, the original (4, 3, or 2 clause) license must be attached.
Re:Why do I get the funny feeling that (Score:2)
As long as the obligations of the BSD license are followed; it is not a free-for-all.
That's not terribly burdensome.
"Copyright 2015 by Forkers, LLC. Based on code copyright 2014 by BSD Baddasses, Inc. This software isn't guaranteed to do a damn thing."
That sweet, sweet two-clause.