Optimal license for Java projects ...

[David Johnson]

On Friday 14 March 2003 03:25 am, John Cowan wrote:

> It does take away the customer's freedom to use *every* improved
> version whatsoever, because someone may make an improved version and
> issue it as non-free software.

Of course. But that was not the orginal poster's complaint about the BSD 
license. For many people, proprietary forks are not an issue, for 
others they are. But the complaint that "commercial parties can take 
the source away" is just not valid.

I was merely trying to get the poster to think beyond the anti-BSD 
stereotypes that are so common. His claim was merely a restatement of 
the tired "BSD is a license to steal" argument.

> > The point is, your [e&e] scenario has never occured.
>
> That's not clear.  For example, Microsoft's command-line FTP client
> does incorporate BSD-licensed code; at least, a troll through ftp.exe
> with "strings" reveals the UCB copyright notice.

But Microsoft has not "embraced and extended" ftp, which is what the 
scenario was describing, and which is what you admit as well. The 
scenario did, however, coincide rather nicely with the urban legend 
that Microsoft "stole" Kerberos.

"Embrace and extend" is an issue that transcends mere licensing. No 
license is going to prevent it, and only a few could impede it with any 
significant result.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3