It's really this simple: there is no clause in the BSD license to enforce code-sharing. In fact, this is perhaps the major difference between the BSD license and the GPL, and has been often touted as an ethical advantage by many BSD license proponents. Now apparently some of them have decided that they would like to enforce code-sharing after all, but through moaning and name-calling instead of making their demands explicit in the license.
Well, cry me a river. A license is a legal document and if you agree to one without knowing what you're doing, it's no one's fault but your own.
I don't think the BSD camp is interested in enforcing code sharing, my interpretation of things is that the BSD camp would like some contributions back on an ethical basis.
I don't know how that's going to be achieved, whether some Linux people dual-license or whatever, or release some things as BSD targeted for the BSD people to use.
I don't think the BSD camp is interested in enforcing code sharing, my interpretation of things is that the BSD camp would like some contributions back on an ethical basis.
So apparently they think it's wrong to demand legally what they believe it's right ethically. Furthermore, they demand other things legally, just not what they actually want. And when it turns out that people outside the BSD camp don't follow that twisted logic, it's time to call them names.
I or anyone else who uses the BSD license for their work would probably not mind if someone took their source and did not contribute back changes (really! or they wouldn't use the license).
Perhaps what Theo wants is a greater dialogue and sharing between the OSS communities, but the GPL is incompatible with the BSD license, so something would need to be done about licensing and sharing code, as I mentioned earlier, if that were to go ahead.
Hey, I could be misunderstanding things too, I'm just trying to
I or anyone else who uses the BSD license for their work would probably not mind if someone took their source and did not contribute back changes
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Surely the whole fracas is ostensibly about Theo and others minding quite a bit about not getting back changes in a way they can use.
Perhaps what Theo wants is a greater dialogue and sharing between the OSS communities
If so, perhaps he should try to start the dialogue with something other than "Hey dude, you stole o
If so, perhaps he should try to start the dialogue with something other than "Hey dude, you stole our stuff". Just sayin'.
Well, I'm not a legal expert regarding the dual licensed works, but not all the files were dual licensed, and Jiri had replaced BSD-only-licensed files with the GPL. That is a violation of the license terms.
Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.
Try "BSD license hindering code-sharing" (Score:2, Redundant)
It's really this simple: there is no clause in the BSD license to enforce code-sharing. In fact, this is perhaps the major difference between the BSD license and the GPL, and has been often touted as an ethical advantage by many BSD license proponents. Now apparently some of them have decided that they would like to enforce code-sharing after all, but through moaning and name-calling instead of making their demands explicit in the license.
Well, cry me a river. A license is a legal document and if you agree to one without knowing what you're doing, it's no one's fault but your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the BSD camp is interested in enforcing code sharing, my interpretation of things is that the BSD camp would like some contributions back on an ethical basis.
So apparently they think it's wrong to demand legally what they believe it's right ethically. Furthermore, they demand other things legally, just not what they actually want. And when it turns out that people outside the BSD camp don't follow that twisted logic, it's time to call them names.
Well, their apparent position makes absol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I or anyone else who uses the BSD license for their work would probably not mind if someone took their source and did not contribute back changes
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Surely the whole fracas is ostensibly about Theo and others minding quite a bit about not getting back changes in a way they can use.
Perhaps what Theo wants is a greater dialogue and sharing between the OSS communities
If so, perhaps he should try to start the dialogue with something other than "Hey dude, you stole o
Re: (Score:2)